IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.447 of 2011 Between: Smt. G. Parvathi and another .. Petitioners AND Panduranga Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in C.M.A. No.54 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, dated 28-12-2010. The factual background for the dispute is that the revision petitioners filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants claiming that one Abdul Azeez purchased the suit land and other lands from their absolute owner and was in possession. The 1st plaintiff claimed to have purchased Ac.12.01 guntas in survey No.412, Ac.0.15 guntas in survey No.157, Ac.0.09 guntas in survey No.411, Ac.1.24 guntas in survey No.384/A, Ac.0.37 guntas in survey No.385/A, Ac.0.34 guntas in survey No.397/A and Ac.1.20 guntas in survey No.398/A under a registered sale deed, dated 16-01-2004 and to have taken possession. The said Abdul Azeez was also claimed to have sold Ac.6.00 in survey No.412 to the 2nd plaintiff through another registered sale deed on the same day. The plaintiffs claiming to be in joint possession of all the lands purchased, made Ac.0.09 guntas in survey No.411 and Ac.18.01 guntas in survey No.412 of Kolpur village, Maganoor mandal as the subject of the suit. The plaintiffs claimed to have been recorded as pattedars in the Record of Rights and to have been issued a pattadar passbook and title book in respect of the suit land, converted it into a pomegranate garden by taking a bank loan on mortgage of the suit lands. The 1st defendant is claimed to be the son of the 2nd defendant and Venkat Rao, and the defendants were claimed to have interfered with the suit land without any right. Hence, the plaintiffs also sought for a temporary injunction in I.A. No.98 of 2007 in O.S. No.14 of 2007 pending the suit. The defendants resisted the request for an interim injunction contending that the suit land is their ancestral and joint family land, for which they are the owners and possessors. Panduranga Rao Mutalik was the original owner of the suit land and other lands and his son Kishan Rao Mutalik died issueless soon after his marriage, due to which Panduranga Rao Mutalik adopted Venkat Rao, the father of the 1st defendant and husband of the 2nd defendant, as he is his sister’s daughter’s son. Venkat Rao was aged about 7 or 8 years at the time of adoption in 1942 performing all the religious poojas and ceremonies. On the death of Panduranga Rao Mutalik on 14-11-1961, the joint family lands devolved on Venkat Rao Mutalik, Dhondamma--daughter of Panduranga Rao Mutalik, and Pramoda Bai--wife of Kishan Rao Mutalik. Venkat Rao Mutalik, Pramoda Bai and Dhondamma were recorded in the revenue records on mutation as the legal heirs of Panduranga Rao Mutalik and Venkat Rao Mutalik died on 21-06-1974 leaving the defendants and three daughters--Rajashree, Jayashree and Vijaya Shree as his heirs. The name of the 1st defendant was entered in the revenue records on mutation after the death of Venkat Rao Mutalik and Dhondamma, daughter of Panduranga Rao Mutalik also died issueless on 18-09-1988 while her husband Bheemsen Rao predeceased her. Her share also, hence, devolved on the 1st defendant and his three sisters under Hindu Succession Act. The defendants were residing elsewhere and Pramoda Bai was looking after all the joint family lands. In 1993, Anantha Rao filed O.S. No.7 of 1993 claiming to be the adopted son of Kishan Rao Mutalik and Pramoda Bai in respect of the ancestral lands of Kolpur to an extent of Ac.16.29 guntas and at that time Abdul Azeez obtained a document from Pramoda Bai purporting to be a general power of attorney, dated 25-02-1993 without any right to sell any of the properties and O.S. No.7 of 1993 was dismissed on 29-07-1994. Abdul Azeez appeared to have created false documents and Pramoda Bai died issueless and intestate on 24-02-1996 leaving the 1st defendant and his three sisters as her heirs. On coming to know about the attempts by Abdul Azeez in respect of the properties, the defendants informed the revenue officials and banks through legal notices also and Makthal police registered crime No.64 of 2007 against Abdul Azeez and his associates on the complaint about creating false and fabricated documents. The defendants also filed appeals before the revenue authorities to correct the wrong entries in the Record of Rights made without notice to them and O.S. No.74 of 2007 was filed by Abdul Azeez against the defendants and two sisters of the 1st defendant alleging interference with his possession in some lands, but no ex parte orders of interim injunction were granted. The plaint in O.S. No.74 of 2007 itself probablises the possession of the joint family lands with the defendants and the alleged sale of lands to the plaintiffs is false. The alleged sale deeds dated 16-01-2004 are sham and nominal without any delivery of possession and the appeals before the Revenue Divisional Officer for rectification of entries, are pending. The suit was undervalued to obtain ex parte orders and the suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Hence, the defendants desired that the injunction petition should be negatived. During enquiry into the injunction petition, the trial Court marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and R.1 to R.23. It rendered its order on 07-12-2007 referring to the rival pleadings and contentions and noting that the properties originally belonged to Panduranga Rao, son of Narasimha Rao, who had a son Kishan Rao and daughter Dhondamma who were married to Pramoda Bai and Bheemsen Rao respectively. Kishan Rao died issueless, while Bheemsen Rao predeceased Dhondamma. Pramoda Bai and Venkat Rao, claimed to be the adopted son of Panduranga Rao, also died and the 1st defendant and his three sisters are claimed to be the only legal representatives by the defendants, while the plaintiffs claimed Anantha Rao to have been adopted by Pramoda Bai. Abdul Azeez was claimed to be purchaser from Anantha Rao under an unregistered sale deed in 1993, which was not filed into Court. The original registered partition deed dated 27-11-1991 said to have been executed between Anantha Rao and Pramoda Bai was also not filed into Court. The trial Court also noted that though the properties covered by O.S. No.7 of 1993 were not the subject matter of this suit, Pramoda Bai denied any adoption of Anantha Rao in that suit and that suit was claimed to have been dismissed. The trial Court further noted that Abdul Azeez did not state in Exs.P.1 and P.2 sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs as to how he acquired the properties, which he was selling. The trial Court also noted that in O.S. No.74 of 2007 filed by Abdul Azeez against the defendants and two sisters of the 1st defendant, the suit properties were also covered by that suit, which could not have been his case if Abdul Azeez sold the properties under Exs.P.1 and P.2 even in 2004. The two private sale deeds relied on by Abdul Azeez in O.S. No.74 of 2007 were said to be from Pramoda Bai and there was no reference to the purchase from Anantha Rao in 1993. The trial Court also noted that the pleadings in O.S. No.74 of 2007 improbablised the prima facie title of Abdul Azeez and any consequent title of the plaintiffs, and the trial Court refused to act on the entries in the revenue records including in the pass books and title deeds, more so when an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer at the instance of the defendants is pending. As the matter is for an injunction simpliciter, the trial Court found the plaintiffs to be having no prima facie title and it further noted that the pahanies filed by both the parties and the criminal complaint filed by the defendants in respect of interference with their possession do not lead to any belief in the possession of the plaintiffs and referring to the three precedents from this Court cited before it, the trial Court concluded the plaintiffs to have not proved the essential ingredients for grant of interim injunction and hence, while vacating the interim injunction granted on 20-08-2007, the petition was dismissed with costs. In appeal, the impugned judgment was delivered again referring to the rival pleadings, contentions and the documents and the first appellate Court again noted that the suit filed by Anantha Rao against Pramoda Bai in O.S. No.73 of 2004 was dismissed and the documents of purchase by Abdul Azeez from Anantha Rao and Dhondamma were not before the Court. The first appellate Court further noted that Anantha Rao was not declared to be the adopted son of Kishan Rao and/or Pramoda Bai by any Court and Abdul Azeez was noted to have failed in getting an interim injunction in O.S. No.74 of 2007. The entries in the revenue records were noted by the first appellate Court to have been the result of the registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the alleged unregistered sale deed in favour of Abdul Azeez. An appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer was also noted to be pending and the first appellate Court, hence, agreed with the trial Court about the absence of any prima facie case for the plaintiffs. The civil miscellaneous appeal was, hence, dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs filed the civil revision petition reiterating their contentions that Exs.P.1 to P.10 proved their possession in respect of the suit lands by the date of the suit and an interim injunction in the suit for injunction simpliciter could not have been rejected on the ground of want of title. Hence, they desired the impugned order to be reversed. The defendants filed a caveat before this Court and they filed C.R.P.M.P. No.4762 of 2011 to receive the evidence of P.W.1/Abdul Azeez’s wife Malan Bee in O.S. No.74 of 2007 as additional evidence. The revision petitioners had no objection to receive the said document and hence, that petition was ordered on 18-08-2011. The said deposition be, hence, marked as Ex.R.24. The copies of the orders in I.A. No.204 of 2007 in O.S. No.74 of 2007, C.M.A. No.7 of 2007 and C.R.P. No.548 of 2009 were also filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners for perusal. Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. The point for consideration is whether the revision petitioners are entitled to an interim injunction in respect of the suit property against the respondents pending the suit ? Point: The copy of the order in I.A. No.204 of 2007 in O.S. No.74 of 2007, dated 27-11-2007 shows the suit to be between Abdul Azeez as plaintiff and the defendants herein as defendants 1 and 2 and sisters of the 1st defendant herein as defendants 3 and 4. The claim of Abdul Azeez extracted therein shows that the suit schedule land was claimed by Abdul Azeez to be under his ownership, possession and enjoyment by the date of the suit and the petition for injunction in 2007. Abdul Azeez claimed to have purchased the said lands from Pramoda Bai under a private sale deed in 1989 and the defendants in that suit raised similar contentions as herein. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction in respect of other lands, but not in respect of the suit schedule lands, as the suit lands are the subject of this suit, in which an ex parte injunction was granted against the defendants herein. The learned counsel for the defendants and the sisters of the 1st defendant specifically brought to the notice of the trial Court therein that the two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs herein were not referred to at all by Abdul Azeez in the pleadings in that suit and the merits of the claim of Abdul Azeez in respect of the present suit schedule lands were not discussed by the trial Court therein. However, the fact remains that Abdul Azeez made no mention about the sale of the land to the plaintiffs under registered sale deeds or their possession and enjoyment since then, while in 2007 he claimed the present suit schedule land to be his. The order in C.M.A. No.7 of 2007 dated 21-11-2008 shows that the appellate Court in respect of the present suit schedule property also opined, from Exs.P.1 to P.18 marked therein, that Abdul Azeez was in physical possession of the said land also. Therefore, the appellate Court considered it no way inconsistent with any orders passed in this suit even if an injunction were to be granted in respect of the present suit schedule land and consequently, it granted injunction against the entire suit schedule property of that suit. Thus, the injunction in favour of Abdul Azeez therein as if he was in possession and the interim injunction originally granted in favour of the plaintiffs herein as if they were in possession by the date of this suit, could not have co-existed on facts. In C.R.P. No.548 of 2009, this Court by an order, dated 15-04-2009 observed that the appellate Court should not have granted an injunction in respect of the entire plaint schedule property when the restriction of temporary injunction only to Ac.7.10 guntas by the trial Court was not appealed against by the plaintiff therein. Therefore, the injunction was again restricted by this Court only to the extent of the land as ordered by the trial Court. O.S. No.74 of 2007 is said to be still pending trial and determination on merits and as of now, therefore, the fact remains that Abdul Azeez without referring to any sale of the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiffs, sought for an injunction in his favour claiming ownership and possession of the present suit schedule lands as against the defendants herein and two sisters of the 1st defendant and this claim in 2007 cannot strengthen the claims of the plaintiffs about their possession and enjoyment on a purchase from Abdul Azeez since 2004. The deposition of wife of Abdul Azeez in O.S. No.74 of 2007 marked as Ex.R.24 herein again reiterated Abdul Azeez being the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule lands therein including the present suit schedule lands. She positively stated that they never sold any lands to the plaintiffs and her claims as if she had personal knowledge of absence of any sale of any land by Abdul Azeez to the plaintiffs, run counter to the claims of the plaintiffs. The trial Court in its elaborate order noted that there was inconsistency as to whether Abdul Azeez purchased the present suit schedule lands from Anantha Rao or Pramoda Bai. While the original ownership of the suit schedule lands with Panduranga Rao Mutalik is not in dispute, the manner in which Anantha Rao became entitled to or got the suit schedule properties was also not probablised by production of the alleged registered partition deed or any other document. O.S. No.7 of 1993 between Pramoda Bai and Anantha Rao is not a probablising factor for the alleged adoption of Anantha Rao and the silence of Abdul Azeez about the source of his title in Exs.P.1 and P.2 was also rightly referred to by the trial Court apart from the apparent inconsistency between the claims of Abdul Azeez in O.S. No.74 of 2007 and the claims of the plaintiffs in the present suit. The reluctance of the trial Court to place any greater reliance on the entries in the revenue records under such circumstances, more so when an appeal at the instance of the defendants is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot be considered to be unreasonable or perverse and even if two views are possible from the contents of Exs.P.3 to P.11 vis-à-vis Exs.R.1 to R.24, the trial and the appellate Courts having concurrently adopted a particular view on facts, the same may not be susceptible to interference in the restricted revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Sri Maniklal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents referred to in this regard some precedents and in Y. Vijayabharathi v. Y. Manikyamma[1], a learned Judge of this Court pointed out that the Records of Rights are the documents ensuring the person to be made liable to pay the revenue and for no other purpose. However, the learned Judge himself noted that such entries have got corroborative value regarding the possession of a party in regard to an immovable property and it is well settled that such entries in the revenue records may afford proof of possession in the absence of any other material on record. In the present case, when the original ownership of the lands with a person connected by relationship to the defendants is admitted and when the defendants trace their claim to the sequence of events narrated by them and when the vendor of the plaintiffs admittedly had nothing to do with the property except under an alleged general power of attorney or a private sale deed from Pramoda Bai or Anantha Rao, the entries in the revenue records could not have led to any prima facie conclusion. I n S. Prabhavathi v. Rohini Kilaru and another[2], the learned Judge, hence, pointed out that the entire burden lies on the plaintiff who comes to Court for a permanent injunction to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and hardship and the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness in the case of the evidence of the defendant. Similarly in Syed Jameel v. K.V.V. Naageshwara Rao[3], the learned Judge pointed out that a person has to satisfy the Court about his prima facie title or right over the disputed property, possession and balance of convenience. In that case, finding the possession to have not been probablised to be lawful possession, interim injunction was refused. I n Movva Rama Krishna v. D. Venkayyanayudu and another[4] also, another learned Judge on the finding of facts therein, concluded that the findings recorded by the Court of first instance are appreciated by the High Court only to the limited extent of considering confirmation or disturbance of the order in the civil miscellaneous appeal. The learned Judge also made it clear that any interlocutory finding did not stand in the way of deciding the main suit. While these principles are unexceptionable, the conclusions of the trial Court and the appellate Court, in view of various circumstances stated above, cannot be said to be plainly opposed to broad human probabilities arising out of the material on record and the revisional powers do not appear invokable at the instance of the plaintiffs for having any order of interim injunction pending the suit. Interference with cogent findings of fact not found to be perverse will be an exceptional intervention in a revision and no such extraordinary need appears to have been probablised by the revision petitioners herein who had no interim relief in their favour since the dismissal of the petition for interim injunction by the trial Court on 07-12-2007 till now. However, as the suit is sufficiently old, the trial Court can be requested to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Subject to such a request, the civil revision petition shall fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Document received as additional evidence and marked as exhibit as per orders in C.R.P.M.P. No.4762 of 2011, dated 18-08-2011: Ex.R.24 / -- / Certified copy of deposition of P.W.1--Malan Bee, wife of Abdul Azeez in O.S. No.74 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-09-2011 Svv [1] 1998 (2) ALT 623 [2] 2006 (5) ALD 606 [3] 2004 (2) A.P.L.J. 11 (HC) [4] 2007 (4) ALD 200