THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3756 of 2011 Date: 08th September, 2011 Between: Padala Purna Chandra Rao and another … Petitioner/Defendant And: Kurimilli Appalanaidu … Respondent / Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3756 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against order dated 26.11.2010 in C.M.A. No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the main suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. As seen from the orders passed by the lower Court, the petitioner’s case is as follows:- The petitioner is the owner of the plaint schedule lands. As seen from the copy of the plaint, the suit schedule lands are Ac.0.25 cents of dry land covered by Sy.No.121/1; Ac.0.85 cents of dry land covered by Sy.No.121/2; totaling to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents of dry land situated in Annavaram Village in Palakonda Mandal. The plaint schedule lands are the ancestral lands of the petitioner and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since more than 50 years from the time of his grand father. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has recognized his title and possession and granted title deed and pattedar pass book in his favour under Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act (in short, ROR Act). His name has been incorporated in Adangal No.3 of Annavaram Village and they have been paying land revenue to the government. The respondents are trying to occupy the plaint schedule lands without any right, title or possession over the said lands. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed his counter which is adopted by the 2nd respondent. Their specific case is that the petitioner is an experienced litigant. The Sy.Nos.121/1 and 121/2 have been made into a single plot with common boundaries. The total extent of Sy.No.121/1 is Ac.2.48 cents. The petitioners wife Kurimilli Padmavathi purchased the above said land and out of the total extent of land, she sold Ac.1.00 cents to the wife of the respondent, Padala Jhansi Lakshmi, for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and executed agreement of sale dated 24.03.1986 and on the date of agreement, the wife of the petitioner received an amount of Rs.15,000/- as advance in the presence of attestors and scribe and also delivered the possession of the petition schedule land to the wife of the respondent. Since the date of agreement, the respondent and his wife were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The wife of the respondent died in 1987 and he being the legal heir of his wife, he continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land, raising and realizing crops therefrom. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the respondent and he has been paying land revenue for the petition schedule land. His name has been mutated in the revenue records. The name of the wife of the petitioner was registered under ROR Act in the year 1985 and therefore in February, 2007, the 1st respondent asked the wife of the petitioner to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. But subsequently on some pretext or the other, the wife of the petitioner did not execute any registered sale deed in his favour. In order to grab the property of the 1st respondent, the present suit has been filed. Ex.P1 is the title deed in favour of the petitioner, Ex.P2 is Pattadar Pass Book, Ex.P3 is No.3 Adangal for fasali 1416, Ex.P4 is Land Revenue Receipt dated 08.03.2006, Ex.P5 is Land Revenue Receipt dated 23.08.2007. As seen from the recitals of these documents, it is clear that originally the title deed and passbooks were issued in the name of Smt.Kurimilli Padmavathi, wife of Appalanaidu. But, subsequently, the name of Kurimilli Padmavathi is struck off and, in her place, the name of the petitioner Appalanaidu has been noted. Of course, in No.3 adangal for the year 2006-07, the name of the petitioner has been shown. Exs.P4 and P5 are the revenue receipts which show that the petitioner has paid the land revenue. Ex.P6 is copy of legal notice sent on behalf of the 1st respondent. Ex.P7 is the reply. Ex.R1 is the copy of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the wife of the petitioner in favour of the wife of the respondent. Ex.R2 is the certified copy of the passbook issued in the name of the 1st respondent showing that the pattadar passbook has been issued for one acre of land in Sy.No.121/1 and that the name of the 1st respondent is noted since his wife died. The other documents, viz., Exs.R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are the revenue receipts. R9 is the legal notice sent by the 1st respondent. R10 is the reply. R11 is the proceedings of the MRO dated 20.08.1985. These proceedings reveal that the wife of the petitioner made an application to the MRO to regularize her sale and that the MRO passed orders accordingly in S.R. No.33/91 ROR dated 28.08.1994. It reveals that the wife of the petitioner claimed that she purchased the land from Vandana Ramudamma, wife of Vandana Somulu, under an agreement of sale. Thus, out of a total of Ac.2.48 cents i.e. Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.121/1, Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.121/2 and Ac.1.31 cents in Sy.No.121/2 has been purchased by the wife of the petitioner. Ex.R12 is the death certificate showing that Padala Jhansi Lakshmi, wife of the 1st respondent died on 28.10.1987. Heard. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the injunction order. Now it is to be seen that both the parties have filed revenue records. The 1st respondent has also filed pattadar passbooks and cist receipts. A reading of the documents clearly go to show that, in the first instance, the Ex.P2-pattadar passbook and Ex.P1-title deed were issued in the name of Kurimilli Padmavathi, wife of the petitioner and subsequently her name has been struck off and the name of the petitioner has been written; and admittedly, there is no initial of the officer who made correction in those records. Of course, the petitioner has filed No.3 adangal for the year 2006-07 showing that he is in possession of the property. However, from the record, prima facie, it appears that the claim of the petitioner that the petition schedule property is ancestral property cannot be accepted. As observed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has suppressed the facts. He did not explain why originally the name of his wife was noted in the pattadar passbook, title deed and subsequently, his name has been written. It has to be seen that the case of the respondent is that his wife purchased the property from the wife of the petitioner under an agreement of sale. Thus, the version of petitioner that schedule property is his ancestral property appears to be incorrect and misleading. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court with unclean hands cannot seek equitable remedy of injunction. The Courts below have not considered this aspect in proper perspective. The appellate Court seems to have committed a mistake in not considering the documents filed by the 1st respondent as the ground that those documents stand in the name of his wife. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled for injunction order. Accordingly, this CRP is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and consequently the interim injunction is granted in favour of the respondent herein (the petitioner in I.A.No.348 of 2007 in O.S.No.128 of 2007), stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ (JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR) 08th September, 2011 ksm