THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR S.A.No.582 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the plaintiff whose suit for injunction was dismissed by both the courts. The suit came to be filed in the following circumstances: The plaintiff, the father of the defendants by name Sanyasi and one Bangari are brothers, who divided their property long back and are separately enjoying their respective shares. The plaintiff claims that he purchased suit schedule extent from his other brother Bangari under a registered sale deed dated 02.06.1992. He claims that he is in possession of the said property and that is evidenced by the entries in the revenue records. Alleging interference by the defendants, the suit came to be filed for injunction. The defendants are the nephews of the plaintiff and the sons of second brother Sanyasi. The defendants filed a written statement contending that all three brothers separated long back and the plaint schedule land is part of the land that fell to the share of the father of the defendants. It is also alleged that the uncle of the defendants ie., Bangari has already alienated all the lands which fell to his share. But curiously, the disputed sale deed under which plaintiff makes the claim for suit land, thoug.h this land falls to the share of the second brother Sanyasi, the father of the defendants. It is also alleged that the revenue record was collusively obtained as if showing that plaintiff is in possession. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties before the trial Court and on consideration of issues as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the basic claim of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property fell to the share of Bangari is not established and in that view of the matter disbelieved the further case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court at the instance of the plaintiff went into the record afresh and was of the view that no rights can be said to have been transferred to the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 when his vendor himself not shown to have title to the property. The appellate Court also therefore dismissed the suit. In this appeal, heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has pointed out that the sale deed as well as the revenue record exhibited on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff has not been properly considered by the Courts below and the possession of the plaintiff, as recorded in the revenue record, ought to have been taken into consideration for grant of injunction in his favour. This Court has admitted this appeal on the substantial question of law as framed in ground No.6 of the memorandum of appeal, which is as follows: a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the courts below are right in dismissing plaintiff’s suit for injunction based on Ex.A.1 sale deed coupled with revenue record which clearly show plaintiff’s title and possession to plaint schedule property especially when the case set up by the defendants is that during final check operations the plaintiff’s vendor’s name was wrongly mutated and therefore, plaintiff’s sale deed based on such wrong entries is not binding on them more so when the defendants have not taken any steps either to set aside the Ex.A.1 sale deed or sought correction of revenue record. b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below are right in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit especially when the entries in pattadar pass book and reord of rights. Exs.A.3 & A.4 respectively, show that plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property and is in possession and the said entries are presumed to be correct under Section 6 of A.P.Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. On consideration of the evidence on record and particular pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the partition among the three brothers is admitted in the written statement, but it is specifically alleged that the vendor of the plaintiff was allotted certain land, which is to the south of the suit land. The said vendor of the plaintiff had alienated the said property as well as the house property, in the year 1975 and he is said to have settled down in Visakhapatnam. The written statement asserts that the suit schedule land forms part of the land, which fell to the share of the father of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff therefore primarily rests upon the entitlement of his vendor to the said land. Neither the vendor of the plaintiff was examined nor there any evidence to establish that the said vendor had any right to dispose of the suit schedule property. Even ignoring the same, as the suit is one for permanent injunction only, the plaintiff has also failed to establish the possession in the light of the consistent case of the defendants as evidenced by Exs.B.1 to B.3 and the evidence of DWs 1 to 4. The said entries in the revenue records relied upon by plaintiff, are the entries, which are mistakenly made by the revenue authorities and the same were duly corrected by the revenue authorities themselves during final check operations and the name of the vendor of the plaintiff was deleted. The plaintiff therefore has failed to clarify the said revenue entries in the light of subsequent final check operations and accordingly findings of both the Courts below that the plaintiff failed to establish possession does not call for interference, as the findings of both the Courts below are based on due consideration of evidence both oral and documentary. The substantial question of law therefore deserves to be answered against the appellant/plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 9th September, 2010 PNV