THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2585 OF 2011 DATED 8th NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Yerra Venkatesh … Petitioner/Plaintiff And Nathi Mallesh and others … Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2585 OF 2011 O R D E R The temporary injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, in I.A.No.263 of 2009 in O.S.No.76 of 2009 was set aside in appeal in CMA No.32 of 2009 by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet, Medak District. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in the suit. The appellate order was suspended on 18.07.2011 pending this revision. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The suit, O.S.No.76 of 2009, was filed for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with and disturbing the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule plot admeasuring 292½ square yards in Sy.No.222/AA/4 of Kallakal Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. The plaintiff also sought an interim injunction pending the suit to protect his possession over the suit plot. It was his case that one Nathi Bhoomaiah was the original pattadar and possessor of an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.222 of Kallakal Village. Bhoomaiah died leaving his widow, Nathi Mallamma, and two sons, Nathi Pentaiah and Nathi Chandraiah. Mallamma’s name was recorded as the pattadar of the land in the revenue records, but the land was enjoyed jointly by all of them. Mallamma died three years prior to the filing of the suit, whereby the sons became the joint owners of the land. They partitioned the same and each got Ac.0-12½ guntas. Nathi Pentaiah is said to have converted his share of land into house plots and sold the suit plot to the plaintiff under registered sale deed bearing document No.444/2009 dated 19.03.2009 (Ex.A1) for valid consideration. The plaintiff got his name recorded as the pattadar of the suit plot under proceedings dated 12.05.2009 (Ex.A2) of the Tahsildar, Toopran. He claims to have applied for permission to construct a house in the suit plot, but in the meanwhile as the defendants were interfering with his peaceful possession over the same and were trying to dispossess him, he filed the subject suit. Copies of the pahanies for the years 2001-02 to 2007-08 (Exs.A3 to A9) were relied upon to prove possession of his predecessors-in-title. Per contra, it was the case of the first defendant that he was the pattadar and possessor of Ac.0-17 guntas of land in Sy.No.222 of Kallakal Village and he produced the pattadar pass book (Ex.B2) and the title deed (Ex.B1) issued to him under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. He further stated that he was paying land cess in respect of this landholding for the past several years and produced Exs.B3 to B5, land revenue receipts of the years 1988 and 1990, in support thereof. He adduced in evidence the registered sale deeds, Exs.B6 to B8, pertaining to his neighbours wherein his landholding was reflected in the schedules and plans. Ex.B10 to B13 encumbrance certificates were filed to prove the registered sale transactions under Exs.B6 to B8. Certificate dated 17.07.2001 (Ex.B9) issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Kallakal Village, was placed on record to show that the first defendant was also known as Nathi Mallaiah. The second and third defendants are the wife and son of the first defendant. It was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was fraudulently claiming ownership over their land by creating documents. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the plaintiff proved his purchase of the suit plot and therefore, prima facie proved his possession as on the date of the suit. Holding that balance of convenience was in his favour and that he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship if injunction was not granted, the trial Court allowed his temporary injunction application by order dated 15.07.2009. In appeal in CMA No.32 of 2009, the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, Medak District, examined the evidence at length. The pahanies Exs.A3 to A5 pertaining to the years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 were found to disclose Nathi Mallamma as the pattadar and possessor of an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Sy.No.222/AA. However, Exs.A6 to A8 being the pahanies for years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 reflected her name as the pattadar and possessor over the extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Sy.No.222/AA/4. The pahani for the year 2007-08 showed the name of Nathi Pentaiah, the vendor of the plaintiff, as the pattadar and possessor of Ac.0-12½ guntas in Sy.No.222/AA/4. However, the sale deed Ex.A1 under which the plaintiff purchased the suit plot did not mention Sy.No.222/AA/4 but only Sy.No.222. Similarly, the mutation proceedings under Ex.A2 issued by the Tahsildar, Toopran, did not refer to the survey number as Sy.No.222/AA/4 but only as Sy.No.222. In the light of these discrepancies in the description of the survey number, the appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule plot and consequently failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction. It accordingly reversed the decision of the trial Court by its order dated 20.04.2011 and set aside the temporary injunction granted in the suit. Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the Court, at its discretion, may grant preventive relief by injunction, temporary or perpetual. Section 37(1) thereof empowers the Court to grant a temporary injunction; to continue until a specified time or until further orders. Such injunction may be granted at any stage of the suit and would be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC deal with grant of a temporary injunction pending the suit. Trite to state, the plaintiff has to first satisfy the Court that he has a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss or injury if injunction is not granted. To make out his prima facie case, the plaintiff must first and foremost establish his possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence and he cannot rely upon the weakness, if any, in the case of the defendant(s), for this purpose [D.APPARAO V/s. D.RAMA MOHANARAO[1]]. It is equally well settled that when the plaintiff fails to prove a prima facie case to go for trial, the question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to him would not be material at all, that is to say, if the party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted [KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN V/s. SRIMAD SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMY[2]]. In the present case, though evidence was placed on record to show that Nathi Mallamma and thereafter her son, Nathi Pentaiah, the vendor of the plaintiff, were the pattadars and possessors of land in Sy.No.222/AA of Kallakal Village, there is no indication as to when further sub-division of the survey number took place whereby Sy.No.222/AA became Sy.No.222/AA/4. No material was placed before the Courts below to indicate the total extent of land in the survey number and its apportionment after sub-division. The discrepancy in the survey number in the relevant documents noticed by the appellate Court complicates the matter further. While the pahanies of the year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 indicated the survey number as 222/AA, the pahanies from 2004-05 onwards indicated that the land of Nathi Mallamma/Nathi Pentaiah was in Sy.No.222/AA/4. That being so, there is no explanation as to why the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.A1) in the year 2009 mentioned the land as being in Sy.No.222 without reference to its sub-division number. Similar is the case with the mutation proceedings dated 12.05.2009 (Ex.A2) issued by the Tahsildar, Toopran. It is no doubt true that mis-description in terms of the survey or plot number may not be fatal as long as the identity of the property is established through the boundaries abutting such property [SHEODHYAN SINGH V/s. Mst. SANICHARA KUER[3]]. However, in the present case there is no clarity even as regards the boundaries. The plaintiff’s sale deed (Ex.A1) indicated that the land of Erakka Satyanarayana was to the south and the land of Dr.Bikshapathi was to the west of the suit plot. However, the sale deed marked by the defendants, being document No.2114/2007 (Ex.B8) pertaining to Erakka Satyanarayana indicated that the plot of Nathi Mallesham lies to the north of Erakka Satyanarayana’s plot. Similarly, document No.6103/2007 (Ex.B7) being the sale deed executed by Dr.Bikshapathi indicated that the open plot of Nathi Mallesham lay to the east of Dr.Bikshapathi’s plot. Pertinent to note, Exs.B7 and B8 were executed long before the plaintiff’s sale deed and being unconnected third party documents, recitals therein cannot be doubted lightly. These two documents therefore clearly contradicted the boundaries of the suit plot shown in the plaintiff’s sale deed. Further, as pointed out by the appellate Court, there is no evidence of Nathi Pentaiah having subjected the land, which allegedly fell to his share in the partition with his brother, to conversion as house plots. Such an exercise would necessarily involve the local authority and there would have to be requisite sanctions as per law for plotting of the land. No evidence was placed on record in this regard. Thus, as matters stood, the identity of the suit plot was not established, be it through the survey number or through its boundaries. The trial Court seems to have placed reliance only upon the plaintiff’s sale deed and drew an inference that he thereby proved his possession over the suit plot as on the date of the suit. Such an inference was not borne out on facts in the light of the contradictions indicated supra. In the absence of clear proof that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit plot as on the date of the suit, it is manifest that he failed to cross the first hurdle of proving his prima facie case based on possession. The appellate Court was therefore justified in setting aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with this exercise by the appellate Court. The Civil Revision Case is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim suspension granted on 18.07.2011 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th NOVEMBER, 2011. PGS [1] 1995 (2) ALT 678 [2] AIR 2010 SC 296 [3] AIR 1963 SC 1879