THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2199 OF 2011 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Nakkala Laxmamma and others …Petitioners And Pullannagari Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2199 OF 2011 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, filed I.A.No.211 of 2008 therein seeking an ad interim injunction against defendants 4 and 5 and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule plot. The trial Court dismissed the said application by order and decree dated 28.08.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 before the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. By order and decree dated 18.01.2011, the appellate Court reversed the dismissal by the trial Court and granted an injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in the suit filed the present revision. By order dated 01.07.2011, this Court granted interim stay of the operation of the order and decree under revision. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The suit, O.S.No.55 of 2008, was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of Plot No.11/part, admeasuring 226 square yards, situated in Survey Nos.803, 804, 836, 842 and 843 at Beeramguda of Ameenpur Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. It is not in dispute that the husbands of defendants 1 and 2, Sailu and A.Rajaiah, were the owners and possessors of the plots bearing Nos.1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13, besides other plots, in Survey Nos.803, 804, 836, 842 and 843 of Ameenpur Gram Panchayat. They sold the aforestated six plots to Rodda Srinivas Goud and Rodda Narender Goud under registered sale deed No.521/1990 dated 08.02.1990 (Ex.R.7). The sale deed makes it clear that a total extent of 1470 square yards was sold thereunder. It is also not in dispute that Rodda Srinivas Goud and Rodda Narender Goud sold the named extents in plots No.1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 purchased by them to various parties under the registered sale deeds marked as Exs.R.1 to R.6. Significantly, the extents sold under these sale deeds totalled 1528.8 square yards, 58.8 square yards in excess of the land purchased by them under Ex.R.7. To compound the matter further, Rodda Srinivas Goud and Rodda Narender Goud sold the suit schedule plot admeasuring 226 square yards in what is named as Plot No.11/part to the plaintiff under registered sale deed No.1233/2002 dated 27.02.2002 (Ex.P.2). Basing on Ex.P.2, the plaintiff filed this suit alleging that defendants 4 and 5 tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit plot. He claimed that upon his verification of the registration records, he found that defendants 1 and 2 had executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (Ex.P.3) in favour of defendant 3 who, in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 08.06.2007 (Ex.P.4) in favour of defendant 4, whereby he laid a claim over the plaintiff’s plot. Taking note of the fact that Rodda Srinivas Goud and Rodda Narender Goud alienated more than the extent purchased by them under Ex.R.7 even before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court opined that the existence of the suit schedule plot had to be established only through an elaborate enquiry; that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case as to his entitlement to get a temporary injunction and accordingly dismissed the I.A. The appellate Court, while agreeing with the trial Court that the plaintiff’s vendors had sold in excess of the land purchased by them even before they executed a sale deed in his favour, strangely concluded that there would still remain some more land in between the Plot Nos.3 & 11 and 4 & 10, which was carved out into Plot Nos.11/part and 3/part, and that the plaintiff’s vendors had sold the said Plot No.11/part to the plaintiff under Ex.P.2. Pertinent to note, this was not the case put forth by the plaintiff himself in his pleadings. The appellate Court on its own came up with the notion that there was excess land purchased by the plaintiff’s vendors under Ex.R.7 and that the same was carved out into the suit plot. Having concocted this new case for the plaintiff, the appellate Court, going by the principle that boundaries would prevail over the extents mentioned in the document, opined that the plaintiff had proved that he had purchased the suit plot and that he was in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the suit. It accordingly reversed the order of the trial Court and granted him an injunction restraining defendants 4 and 5 and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit plot. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants 1 to 3 and 5, contended the appellate Court erred on facts and in law in reversing the reasoned order passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel pointed out that the appellate Court introduced a new case altogether for the plaintiff which was not reflected in his pleadings and that the same was not permissible in law. Per contra, Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent 1/plaintiff, contended that the very execution of Exs.P.3 and P.4 documents manifested that there was excess land over and above that mentioned in Ex.R.7 and therefore, the appellate Court was correct in its approach in going by the boundaries and not by the extent mentioned in the said document. He placed reliance on CHITTURI PERRAJU v. YEDNAPUDI VENKAMMA[1] in this regard. Pertinent to note, the suit is still at the interlocutory stage of grant of a temporary injunction. For this purpose, the plaintiff had to make out a prima facie case; establish that the balance of convenience was in his favour, i.e, it would cause greater inconvenience to him if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience caused to the defendants by the grant thereof; and demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury if a temporary injunction was not granted. Further, the plaintiff had to make out his claim for such injunction on the strength of his own case and not on the weaknesses, if any, in the case of the defendants. To establish his prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the preliminary requirement was that the plaintiff should demonstrate his possession over the suit schedule plot. As pointed out by the trial Court, except for his sale document, the plaintiff was not able to adduce any evidence manifesting his possession over the suit plot. Though normally possession would follow title, in the present case the title itself was not free of suspicion. The vendors of the plaintiff purchased only an extent of 1470 square yards under Ex.R.7 and they admittedly sold an extent of 1528.8 square yards under Exs.R.1 to R.6. They thereafter executed Ex.P.2 in favour of the plaintiff selling a further extent of 226 square yards. The plaintiff therefore had to establish that his very purchase of the suit plot was lawful and valid and that the said plot was in actual existence. Ex.R.7, the sale deed under which the plaintiff’s vendors purchased these plots from the husbands of defendants 1 and 2 clearly mentioned that a total area of 1470 square yards equivalent to 1229 square meters situated in Plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 in Survey Nos.803, 804, 836, 842, and 843 of Ameenpur Gram Panchayat was sold thereunder. The boundaries are no doubt mentioned thereafter but in the light of the specific mention of the area sold, it would be for the plaintiff to establish on evidence that Ex.R.7 conveyed more than the suit extent. At this stage of the suit, even before any evidence was let in, the appellate Court ought not to have indulged in such exercise on the basis of the documents, without proper verification as to ground realities. All the more so, as this was not even the case of the plaintiff as per his pleadings. The decision in CHITTURI PERRAJU is therefore of no avail to the plaintiff. Given the facts on record, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie case and demonstrate that he was in possession of the suit plot. The order of the trial Court holding to this effect was therefore correct on facts and in law. The appellate Court erred in reversing the said order and granting a temporary injunction to the plaintiff by building up a new case for him. The order of the appellate Court in C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 dated 18.01.2011 is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR [1] AIR 1971 AP 74