THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.1104 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.62 of 2009 in O.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-the Judge, Family Court, at Khammam, whereby and whereunder the ad-interim injunction granted on 31.03.2009 is made absolute till disposal of the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as ‘appellant’ and ‘respondents’ as arrayed in this CMA. 3. The plea of the appellant is that he is the owner of the suit schedule land to an extent of Ac.2-26 gts. in Survey No.1333 situated at Aswaraopet Revenue Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, Khammam District and to that effect he filed Pattedar Pass Books, 13-B Patta, and Pahanis. The claim of the respondents over an extent of Ac.5-26 gts. of land is not correct, and they are in possession of only Ac.3-00 gts of land which was purchased by their mother through sale agreement dated 24.8.1969. The sale agreement shows that she had purchased Ac.3.00gts of land in Survey No.1333. There is no document to show that the respondents’ mother had purchased the remaining extent of Ac.2.26 gts. The Mandal Revenue Officer without verifying the title, has issued the alleged ROR title deeds, pass books and certificate. After coming to know of all these manipulations, the appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, Palvancha, seeking cancellation of the pass books in respect of Survey No.1333 and after conducting due enquiry the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, Palvancha passed an order dated 27.2.2009 directing the Tahsildar, Aswaraopet to correct all the Records of Rights including the Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds of the respondents observing that the appellant is in possession of land to an extent of Ac.2.26 gts. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Khammam, which was dismissed on 18.5.2009. Hence, the suit O.S.No. 15 of 2009 along with the present I.A. is unsustainable. 4. The plea of the respondents that originally the land belonged to Kandimalla family, who were the Zamindars. The mother of the respondents purchased an extent of Ac.5.26 gts of land from Kandimalla Varada Rajeswara Rao and Kandimalla Gopalakrishna Rao under two separate sale deeds, one is dated 24.08.1969 and another sale deed 10 days after 24.08.1969. Soon after her purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same and her name was mutated in all the revenue records in pursuance of original sale deed Ex.A.1 and another sale deed. Out of Ac.5.26, an extent of ac.1-11 gts was acquired by the Government for the public purpose and remaining Ac.4.15gts. was in her possession. Out of it, Ac.2.33gts. was given to the first respondent and Ac.2.20 gts. of land was given to second respondent and their names are mutated in the revenue records and Pattadar Passbooks. The names of the respondents are incorporated in the Pahanis after the demise of their mother for the year 1985-86, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1997-98. Thereafter, an extent of Ac.033½ gts each was sold away to their sisters Mytri Prameela and her husband, and Smt.Dunna Satyavathi and her husband. So the remaining land is in possession and enjoyment of the respondents. However, one Jupalli Kodanda Venkata Ramama Rao, styling himself as General Power of Attorney of defendant filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Palvancha claiming the schedule property as the property of the defendant and the Sub-Collector allowed the appeal. Against the said orders, the respondents filed a revision before the Joint Collector and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the respondents filed appeal before the District Collector and the same is pending disposal. The respondents filed this suit for declaration, and for perpetual injunction on the file of Additional District Judge, At Khammam, along with I.A. No.62 of 2009 which was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction prohibiting the appellant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. 5. The learned Additional District Judge after taking into consideration the factual and legal aspects, and the documentary evidence brought on record by both sides, came to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and the ad-interim injunction granted on 31.3.2009 was made absolute in the I.A. till disposal of the main suit, by order dated 7.10.2009. Challenging the said order, this C.M.A. has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the court below without appreciating the evidence brought on before it, erroneously allowed the I.A. based on assumptions and presumptions. He contended that the court below ought to have considered the documentary evidence with respect to possession and title of the appellant over the suit schedule land. Further, the court below has not taken into consideration the orders of the Sub-Collector and the Joint Collector wherein the claim of the appellant has been proved. 7. Per contra, the leaned counsel for the respondents submitted that the court below after going through the documents produced before it, came to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and allowed the I.A. by making the injunction granted on 31.03.2009 absolute. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference from this court. 8. It is seen that the court below inter alia finding the respondents in possession of the suit schedule land, having regard to Ex.A.1 sale deed, came to the conclusion that prima facie they were having title over the said property and thereby disbelieving the case of the appellant, passed the impugned order. 9. Though, it is the case of the appellant that the Sub-Collector, Palvancha recorded under Ex.A.17 that the respondents encroached the said land on 27.2.2008, it is not sufficient to disprove the possession and title of the respondents over the suit schedule land as the said order does not, ipsofacto, disprove their possession. Further, though, the joint Collector confirmed the order of the Sub-Collector, the order of the Joint Collector has not attained finality since it has been challenged before the District Collector by the respondents. Moreover, in Pattadar passbooks of the appellant there are interpolations in relevant columns at many places. It is seen that the court below having regard to the documentary evidence brought on record by both sides, prima facie came to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule land and granted the interim injunction. 10;. In the above circumstances, this court is convinced that the court below has not committed any error or irregularity in passing the impugned order to safeguard the interest of the respondents, and the same is not liable to be interfered with. Therefore, we find no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. _​_____________ V.V.S. RAO,J _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 14-12-2009 Stp