IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBR, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1005 OF 2010 Between: Enumulapally Surekha and two others … Petitioners And Bingi Chinna Gangaram & others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1005 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)S The learned counsel for the appellant Sri H.Venu Gopal and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18 Sri K.Jaya Kumar have stated that the substantive appeal could as well be disposed of as it involves issues falling within a narrow compass. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in their favour of lands in an extent of Acs.1-34 guntas in survey No.254 and Ac.1-17 guntas in survey No.255 of Lingampet Shivar of Jagitial mandal. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed that one Enumalapally Lakshmi Bai, W/o.Tirumala Rao was the original owner of the land in question, who had a son by name Venkata Narsing Rao @ Keshava Rao. Since she has no children Lakshmi Bai and her husband adopted one Venkata Narasing Rao. The 2nd and 3rd Appellants are the paternal grandsons of Narasing Rao, while the 1st appellant is their mother. The 2nd appellant is the general power of attorney holder for the 3rd appellant, since the later now is a resident of U.S.A. According to the appellants, Lakshmi Bai died intestate on 15.10.1967 leaving behind the adopted son Venkata Narasing Rao. Her husband predeceased her. On the death of Lakshmi Bai the extent of Acs.1-34 guntas in survey No.254 devolved on Narasing Rao by way of intestate succession. Similarly, the extent of Acs.1-17 guntas in survey Nos.255 also devolved on Narasing Rao and the lands were also mutated in his favour in the revenue records. Narasing Rao died on 17.01.2001 leaving behind the appellants, his daughter-in-law, two paternal grandsons respectively as his only legal heirs and thus they became owners and possessors of the said land. Out of the extent of Ac.1-17 guntas in survey No.255, the 1st appellant sold some extent to one Chandra Prakash and the balance extent is therefore Ac.0-38 guntas. Taking advantage of the absence of the petitioners from Jagityal, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 and mother of respondent No.9 have illegally occupied the suit lands, obtained mutation in their names in the revenue records under the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). The respondents claim ownership of the property on the basis of unregistered sale deeds dated 06.09.1968, 06.01.1968 and 12.10.1968 which have been regularized under the provisions of the Act in ROR file Nos.B/1062/2005; B/1065/2005; B/1066/2005; and B/1179/2005. The appellants having come to know about the proceedings under the Act had preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagityal. The appeal having been dismissed irregularly, they preferred revision before the District Collector on 06.11.2007, which is pending. It is also alleged in the suit and in the interlocutory applications filed there by the appellants herein that the 1st respondent was alienating the property by executing nominal documents so as to defeat the rights of the appellants in the event of their success therein. Hence they filed two interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.652 and 651 of 2010. I.A.No.651 of 2010 was filed for temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating, transferring, mortgaging and disposing of the property pending the suit, while I.A.No.652 of 2010 is filed to restrain the respondents from making any constructions or alterations in the lands till disposal of the suit. By the common order, dated 15.09.2010, the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar rejected both the applications. It requires to be noted that according to the respondents/defendants in the suit they have purchased the suit schedule properties from Lakshmi Bai under unregistered sale deeds in respect of which they obtained regularization under the provisions of Act. They also claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands over 3 to 4 decades and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. In dismissing both the applications, the Court below held that the petitioners/appellants herein failed to place any material before the Court to disclose that the respondents would dispose of the properties in future as well; that the disputed question relating to title which can only be decided after evidence is adduced in the suit and that since the proceedings under the Act are in favour of the respondents and they are in possession of the lands, it has to be considered that the petitioners/appellants herein do not have prima facie title to the suit schedule property. On the above reasoning both the applications were rejected. Against the order in I.A.No.651 of 2010, the appellants herein filed C.M.A.No.935 of 2010, which was allowed for the reasons recorded therein. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Court below in rejecting I.A.No.652 of 2010 whereby the appellants herein sought a direction to the respondents/defendants restraining them from making any constructions on the lands till the disposal of the suit. This court discerns no infirmity in the order of the Court below declining grant of relief in I.A.No.652 of 2010. The respondents claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property for over 3 to 4 decades; the revenue proceedings under the provisions of the Act are in their favour, both in the original proceedings by the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the appellate proceedings by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had dismissed the appeals. There against a revision was filed. No doubt the revision preferred by the appellants against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is pending consideration before the Joint Collector. But in these circumstances, denying the petitioners right to make constructions, which if made will no doubt be subject to the result of the suit, would be inequitable. On the aforesaid reasoning, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this appeal. The C.M.A.(SR) is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 10th November 2010 lmv