THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.938 of 2009 DATED: 14.09.2010 Between: Teachers’ Colony welfare Association .. Appellant And The A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.938 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per RKR,J) This is an appeal from the order and decree dated 08.09.2008 in I.A.No.1441 of 2007 in O.S.No.612 of 2007 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The first respondent-A.P. Bhudan Yagna Board represented by its Secretary filed the main suit for declaration of title and injunction and filed interlocutory application (I.A.) seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellant and others from interfering with its possession and enjoyment over the schedule mentioned land. The learned trial Court after making an enquiry into the I.A. on merits, allowed the application filed by the first respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w 151 of CPC granted temporary injunction against the appellant and others pending disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved the appellant who was the 11th respondent before the court below filed the present appeal. We have heard both the learned counsel representing the parties. The brief facts relevant for considering the appeal are that originally one Theegala Keshava Reddy was the owner of the schedule mentioned land which is an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas in Sy.No.34 (Old), Meerpet village, Saroornagar mandal of Ranga Reddy District. Inspired by the call given by Sri Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Theegala Keshava Reddy donated the said land which is part of Ac.15-31 guntas by executing Bhoodan gift deed dated 04.02.1956. He also executed Rajinama dated 19.04.1956 in terms of 1951 Special Rules. The Rajinama was accepted by the District Collector and the land stood vested in the Government of Hyderabad by virtue of Rule 8 of 1951 Special Rules. Subsequently, the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted A.P. Bhudan and Gramdhan Act, 1965 (Act No. 13 of 1965) which was published in the A.P. Gazette on 10.05.1965. The first respondent board was constituted under 1965 Act which repealed 1951 Special Rules. By virtue of the second proviso to section 35 of the 1965 Act all the lands donated under the Special Rules 1951 and vested in the Government before the commencement of 1956 Act shall after such commencement be deemed to vest in the Board. Therefore, according to the first respondent board after the donation made by Mr.Theegala Keshav Reddy it has been in continuous possession of the said land which is a vacant land. It is the version of the appellant that the respondents 1 and 2 in I.A.No.1441 of 2007 before the court below with their father Theegala Keshava Reddy executed registered sale deed, dated 06.06.1982 in respect of the schedule mentioned land in favour of Panchayat Raj Teachers Co-operative Housing Limited. According to them the said sale deed was for the entire land in Sy.No.33 and 34. It is the version of the first respondent that under the guise of sale deed, the respondents in I.A. No. 1441 of 2007 before the trial Court tried to occupy the schedule mentioned land by force which made the first respondent to institute the suit for declaration of title and injunction. Before the learned Court below Exs.P-1 to P-29 were marked on behalf of the respondents and Exs.R-1 to R-31 were marked on behalf of the appellant and others. Admittedly, Mr.Theegala Keshava Reddy was the registered owner of the land. The Government of Hyderabad issued notification No.56 dated 27.07.1951 framed the rules called as Sri Acharya Vinobha Bhave Sarvodaya Bhoo Yagna and the revenue Special Rules, 1951. As per Rule 8 of the special rules, when once the rajinama is accepted by the District Collector, the land shall immediately vest in the government. As per rule 17 ‘A’ register shall be maintained by the Tahsildar in form No.IV in respect of lands relinquished under these rules. After the enactment of Act 13/1965 all the lands donated under the special rules and vested in the government before the commencement of the Act, shall after such commencement be deemed to vest in the Board. Coming to the documents filed by the first respondent, Ex.P-1 is the gift deed executed by Theegala Keshava Reddy in respect of the land in Sy.No.34 of Meerpet on 04.02.1956. Ex.P-2 is English version of Ex.P-1. Ex.P-3 is Bhudan Yagna Razinama dated 19.04.1956 requesting to accept the gift. Ex.P-4 is its English version. Ex.P-5 is the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the Convener, Bhudan and Gramdan (Ex.P-6 is its English version) enclosing the list of lands with the names of donors, acceptance of the gift and mutation in the revenue records. In the said letter Sy.No.34 is shown at Sl.No.82 as accepted and mutated in the name of Bhudan Yagna Board. Ex.P-8 is the list and Ex.P-9 is the plan showing the location. All these documents clearly go to show that the schedule mentioned land was donated by Theegala Keshava Reddy and in pursuance thereof it had been vested in the government, after the acceptance of the razinama by Tahsildar. It is the contention of the appellant and others before us as well as before the learned trial Court in that the entire schedule mentioned land does not belong to Theegala Keshava Reddy and he has no right to make a gift. But in Ex.P-14 setwar, Theegala Keshava Reddy alone was shown as owner of the land in Sy.No.34 of Meerpet village. In Ex.P-15 vasulbaki register also Theegala Keshava Reddy alone is shown as pattedar of Sy.No.34. As per Rule 3 of 1951 Rules, a registered holder of the land can make a gift. Therefore, it is not open for the appellant at this length of time to contend that the gift made by Theegala Keshava Reddy is not valid. The appellant and others further relied on pahanies of the years 1959-60 to 2004-05 and they are marked on their behalf as Exs.R-1 to R-25. The pahanies for the years 1955 to 1958 are marked as Ex.R-31. In all the pahanies Theegala Keshava Reddy is shown as pattedar and one Ram Reddy is shown as bigamidar (share holder) of the land in Sy.No.34. In this context it requires to be noticed that the name of Ram Reddy is not mentioned as pattedar prior to Exs.P-1 to P-10. Therefore, it is highly difficult to visualize that Ram Reddy was having a share in the property donated by Keshava Reddy in favour of Bhudan Yagna Samithi. Further the name of Bhudan Yagna Samithi is noted as pattedar and occupier in the year 1955 itself. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned trial Court no importance can be attached to Exs.R-1 to R-25 since they were subsequent to vesting of title in Bhudan Yagna Samithi. There is also no basis for the contention of the appellant that the first respondent has been wrongly claiming Sy.No.34 new instead of Sy.No.42 new. Since there is no dispute about the boundaries of the schedule mentioned land, even if there is any discrepancy about the survey number, it is of no consequence and it is not possible to hold that the identity of the subject matter is in dispute. Since Keshava Reddy by executing gift in favour of Bhudan Yagna Samithi relinquished his title and the entire rights incidental thereto, the subsequent sale deed executed by him, even if true his sons and others in the year 1982 does not convey any title in favour of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove, the learned trial Court in our considered view rightly arrived at the conclusion that the first respondent made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience is in favour of the first respondent and against the appellant and others and also that the first respondent will be subjected to irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. Thus, we absolutely see no merit in the appeal. Consequently, we confirm the order passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:14.09.2010. ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.938 of 2009 Date: 14-09-2010