THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1702 of 2011 Date: 08th September, 2011 Between: Padala Purna Chandra Rao and 2 others … Petitioners/Plaintiffs And: Kurimilli Padmavathi and another … Respondents / Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1702 of 2011 ORDER: This CRP is directed against order dated 26.11.2010 in C.M.A. No.5 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. The petitioners’ specific case is that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st petitioner. The wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of the petitioners 2 and 3, Jhansi Lakshmi, during her life time entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent; who agreed to sell the petition schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and took an advance of Rs.15,000/- on 24.03.1986 to sell the petition schedule land, admeasuring one acre in Sy.No.121/1. Sy.Nos.121/1, 121/2, 121/3, 121/4 are situated side by side and they were all clubbed and merged together. The 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule land from one Vandana Ramudamma and subsequently her name was registered under ROR Act. On the date of agreement itself i.e., 24.03.1986, the wife of the 1st petitioner was put in possession of the property and since then she had been cultivating. After her death, the petitioners succeeded the estate of Jhansi Lakshmi, wife of the 1st petitioner and since then the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land and are paying land revenue. The respondents hatched a plan to grab the petition schedule land and created some fictitious documents. The 2nd respondent is a retired employee well versed in Court litigation. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the petitioners requested the 1st respondent to execute registered sale deed, she did not execute the sale deed and tried to occupy the petition schedule land. Their specific case is that they raised sugar cane crop and there is standing crop raised by them and if injunction order is not granted, they will be put to irreparable loss. They filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.1986 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the wife of 1st petitioner and also sought permanent injunction. The respondents filed a counter denying the averments made by the petitioner. Their case is that the 2nd respondent is the absolute owner of 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, Ac.1.38 cents of dry land covered by Sy.No.121/3 and Ac.1.93 cents of dry land covered by Sy.No.126 and that these lands are the ancestral lands of the 2nd respondent and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same since the time of his father and grand father; and that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had also issued title deed, pattadar passbook under the provisions of ROR Act and the 2nd respondent has been paying land revenue to the Government. The further case of the respondents is that the petitioners have been residing in Sarlapalli village in Gajapathi district in Orissa State. They filed the suit at the instigation of Varada Durga Rao. The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.128 of 2007 on 25.09.2007 seeking permanent injunction against the 1st petitioner and the said Varada Durga Rao and obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.128 of 2007 and after receiving the notice in the said suit, the present suit has been filed. It is denied that the 1st respondent entered into agreement of sale with the wife of the 1st petitioner agreeing to sell the petition schedule land and executed an agreement of sale on 24.03.1986 and received an amount of Rs.15,000/-. The 1st petitioner issued legal notice on 03.12.2006 and a reply was given to the said notice stating that she is not the owner of the land and that she never executed the agreement of sale in favour of the wife of the 1st petitioner; and after receiving the said reply, the petitioners kept quiet. The learned Junior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent is having prima facie possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and accordingly granted temporary injunction. It is also observed that the 1st petitioner has not taken steps to get the sale deed registered from the 1st respondent during the lifetime of his wife; and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, C.M.A. was filed. The learned appellate Judge upheld the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for injunction order. Today we have disposed of Civil Revision Petition No.3756 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the injunction granted in favour of the 2nd respondent has been vacated on the ground that he has not come to the Court with clean hands and the documents filed by both the parties reveal that originally the property belonged to Ramudamma and it is not the ancestral property of the 2nd respondent. Though it is a fact that the petitioners though claimed that the 1st respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the wife of the 1st petitioner on 24.03.1986, they have not taken any steps to file a suit for specific performance against the 1st respondent during all these days. It is argued that only in 2007, the name of the 1st respondent was entered in the revenue records and therefore, the delay occurred. Whatever it may be, that is an issue to be considered by the Court at the time of considering the claim for specific performance of agreement of sale. The records filed by both the parties reveal that both the parties were issued pattadar passbooks and both of them have paid the land revenue, and therefore, it is not clear as to who is in possession of the property as on today. Of course, the petitioners claim that they have been in possession of the property and they specifically pleaded that they have raised sugarcane crop, whereas the respondent has not come with a specific plea as to the nature of crop raised by him. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute. In view of the same, both the parties are directed not to create any third party rights and maintain status quo. Since it appears that the petitioners raised crops, their possession cannot be disturbed. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed. In the circumstances, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suits expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ (JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR) 08th September, 2011 ksm