HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1634 of 2011 Date : 29-7-2011 Between : Mettu Anji Reddy .. Petitioner And Smt.Mettu Venkata Narasamma and others ` .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Ms.K.Savithri Devi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 : Sri S.Sudarshan The court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order and decree dated 30-3-2011 in C.M.A.No.8/2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed the suit O.S.No.1/2010 in the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property (for short “ the suit property”) admeasuring Ac.6-07 guntas in Sy.No.240, comprising two wells, one bore well and a house. The plaintiff also sought for a similar injunction in respect of Ac.0- 10 guntas of Jowar agricultural land. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the sole and absolute owner and possessor of Ac.11-03 guntas in Sy.Nos.236 to 241, 244 and 245 of Yennaram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, that he has inherited the said property from his father Mettu Rajaiah after the latter’s demise, that originally the said property was the inam land of Bodduvalli Lakshmi Narasimha, the plaintiff’s father Mettu Rajaiah and his brothers Mettu Mallaiah, Mettu Lakshmi, Mettu Sathaiah, Mettu Chinna Mallaiah and Mettu Basavaiah, who were in joint possession of the said land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of Ac.6-07 guntas in Sy.No.240 which is on Northern side and also Ac.0-10 guntas of dry land, that as the prices of the lands have gone up, the defendants started preventing him from harvesting the crop wrongfully claiming that the suit property belongs to them, that he approached the Tahsildar who is the authority to measure the land, that the panchanama conducted by the Revenue Inspector shows that he is in possession of the suit property and that when the defendants and the persons claiming through them started interfering with his possession in July 2009 and December 2009, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.10/2010 in O.S.No.1/2010 for temporary injunction. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.5 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has denied the plaintiff’s claim that he is the owner and possessor of the suit property. It is his case that himself and defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with defendant No.1, that the suit property is one of the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the other defendants who are enjoying the same jointly without partitioning by metes and bounds, that the panchanama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector was without their knowledge and notice and that no such panchanama was conducted as claimed by the plaintiff. The trial court, on appreciation of the documentary evidence, i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-3 and Exs.R-1 to R-10, held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and has accordingly granted the temporary injunction. The lower appellate court however reversed the said order in C.M.A.No.8/2010. A perusal of the order of the lower appellate court would show that defendant Nos.2 to 9 filed O.S.No.47/2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet for partition of the suit schedule property and also the remaining land in Sy.No.240, that the entries in Ex.R-10, true copy of pahani for the year 2006-07, issued by the Village Administrative Officer show the defendants to be in possession of different extents of lands and that the plaintiff to be in possession of Ac.2-34 guntas only. The lower appellate court observed that even though Ex.P-1- panchanama conducted on 15-7-2009 by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property but as the entries in Ex.R-10 show that the plaintiff is in possession of Ac.2-34 guntas only, the said document is inconsistent with Ex.P-1. The lower appellate court also observed that the plaintiff has not explained as to how he became the possessor of the suit property without having title to the same. During the pendency of this revision petition, the plaintiff filed CRP.MP.No.2328/2011 to receive No.3 Adangal for the year 2009-10 as additional evidence. This court has given opportunity to the respondents/defendants to file a counter-affidavit. Accordingly, a counter-affidavit is filed wherein objections have been raised for admitting the said document. A separate order has been passed allowing the said application. A perusal of the said document would show that the same is extract of No.3 Account for the year 2009-10 which shows that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the entire extent of Ac.6-07 guntas in various survey numbers. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that this document could not be filed before the courts below due to bona fide mistake and that this document, if considered, would completely support the case of the plaintiff that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the defendants/respondents have submitted that the No.3 Account for the year 2009-10, which is filed in this revision petition by the petitioner/plaintiff is obviously based on Ex.P- 1 proceedings and that no value can be attached to it. In my opinion, the endeavour of the court should be to find out as to who is in physical possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. Shorn of technicalities, the court is required to examine the documents made available in order to adjudicate the question of possession. If the entries in the extract of the No.3 Account for the year 2009-10 are made the basis, they clearly establish that the plaintiff is in possession of Ac.6-07 guntas. However, since the petitioner/plaintiff filed this document for the first time in this revision petition, I feel it appropriate that an opportunity is given to the respondents/defendants to meet this document before conclusive findings are rendered. As such it is in the interest of justice that the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration on the basis of the extract of the No.3 Account for the year 2009-10. Accordingly, the orders of the courts below are set- aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal of I.A.No.10/2010. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to file and mark the extract of No.3 Account for the year 2009-10 in addition to the documents already marked on his behalf. The respondents/defendants are entitled to file additional counter affidavit with reference to the above mentioned document which is permitted to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial court shall thereafter dispose of the I.A. afresh. Till disposal of the I.A., the parties shall maintain status quo existing as on today with reference to the suit property. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order dated 26-4-2011 is vacated and CRPMP Nos.2326 and 2327 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-7-2011 AM