THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +C.R.P.No.2241 of 2009 % 24-07-2009 Between: Bongunoori Bal Reddi and others …Petitioners And B.V. Satyanarayana Raju and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri M.V. Durga Prasad ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2241 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.579 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.2.0 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.230/AA of Dommar Pochampally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was pleaded that the respondents purchased the land through document dated 11-05-2006, from the registered owner, represented by his power of attorney and ever since then, they are in possession of the land. They complained that the petitioners are interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the land. With these allegations, they have also filed I.A.No.1923 of 2006, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The petitioners, on the other hand, filed a counter, stating that they are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.38 guntas of land, in that survey number, ever since 1959. The original pattadar and his brothers are said to have executed unregistered document dated 26- 08-1971, and that the same was regularized on 18-01-2006 by the competent authority. According to them, the total extent of the land is Ac.9.01 guntas, and over a period of time, the sons of the original owner sold away the entire land and there was nothing to be sold in favour of the respondents. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 23-04- 2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.124 of 2007 in the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The appeal was dismissed on 27-04-2001. Hence, this revision. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of the petitioners over Ac.1.38 guntas is spread over, for the past several decades, and though voluminous documentary evidence was placed before the trial Court, the same was ignored and temporary injunction was granted. He contends that the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, granted an order of status quo in favour of his clients, in O.S.No.601 of 2006, filed by them. Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents placed before the trial Court, documents that witnessed the lawful source of title and consequential possession; whereas the petitioners were not able to substantiate their plea. He contends that the trial Court found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the respondents, and that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. The suit filed by the respondents is the one, for the relief of injunction-simplicitor. They have also filed I.A.No.1923 of 2006, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. During the course of enquiry into the I.A., the respondents filed Exs.A-1 to A-3 . They based their claim on a sale deed dated 11-05-2006, marked as Ex.A-1. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the pahani for the year 2002-03. The other document, marked as Ex.A-3, relied upon by them; is an order dated 31-08-2006, through which, the Mandal Revenue Officer effected mutation in favour of the petitioners, on the basis of Ex.A-1. The petitioners, on the other hand, filed Exs.B-1 to B-25. These documents included pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the individual residents, from different extents of land, marked as Exs.B-1 to B-10. Copy of sale deed dated 26-08-1971 was marked as Ex.B-11, partition deed dated 03-03-2006, as Ex.B-12, and certified copies of the pahanies, commencing from 1959 to 1960, up to 2004-05, though not continuously were marked as Exs.B-15 to B-25. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioners independently filed O.S.No.601 of 2006, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction against certain other persons, and an order of status quo was granted in their favour. In a suit for perpetual injunction, title does not assume primary importance. It is referred mostly, to justify the claim for possession. The respondents pleaded their title on the strength of Ex.A-1, whereas the petitioners claimed it, under Ex.B-11, preceding and followed by their possession, as well as an order of regularization of the same. So far as the possession is concerned, the respondents relied upon Ex.A-2, which is a pahani for the year 2002-03. Since it was much earlier to the sale deed, dated 11-05-2006, one cannot expect the names of the respondents, to figure in it. In contrast, the petitioners filed pahanies for the year 2004-05, marked as Ex.B-25. Even in this, the name of the original owner is shown as pattadar, but the petitioners are shown as possessors. The Courts below proceeded on the assumption that the survey number of the land, purchased by the respondents, is independent. The fact, however, remains that Sy.No.230 comprised of Ac.9.01 guntas, and it was divided into 230/A, to an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas, and 230/AA, comprising Ac.4.21 guntas. Ananthula Rajaiah and his brothers figured as pattadars. In this scenario, it cannot be said that the respondents have proved their possession over the property. In addition to the material placed by them, before the trial Court, the petitioners have filed quite large number of documents, marked as Exs.B-26 to B-44, before the lower Appellate Court. These included the pahanies for the year 2005-06, which are of immediate relevance, and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 17-11-2008, through which he has set aside the mutation ordered by the Mandal Revenue Officer, through Ex.A-3. The possession of the petitioners over Ac.1.38 guntas of land in Sy.No.230/AA is reflected in Ex.B-27, for the year 2005-06, followed by Ex.B-28, for the subsequent year. An attempt was made by the respondents to convince this Court, that the land claimed by the petitioners is different from the one, purchased by the respondents, under Ex.A-1. If that be so, the respondents cannot have any right to seek any injunction, vis-vis the land, which is the subject-matter of Exs.B-2, B-27 and B-28. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P is partly allowed, modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court to the effect that, it shall not in any way effect the possession of the petitioners herein as reflected in the pahanies for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-07, for an extent of Ac.1.38 guntas of land in Sy.No.230/AA. It has already been mentioned that the petitioners filed O.S.No.601 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. During the course of arguments, both the parties have agreed that O.S.No.579 of 2006 filed by the respondents in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, may be transferred to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, so that there does not exist any possibility of conflicting judgments, being rendered, in respect of the same property. Hence, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that O.S.No.579 of 2006, now pending in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, shall stand transferred to the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, and on such transfer, it shall be heard along with O.S.No.601 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24-07-2009. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/O)KO*