HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3585 of 2010 Between: Yannam Kanakaratnam and others … Petitioners/appellants And Penkey Krishna Chandra Rao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3585 of 2010 ORDER:- Petitioners/plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, to revise the order of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry passed in C.M.A.No.40 of 2008, dated 29.04.2010, whereby the appeal was allowed setting aside the order and decree, dated 10.07.2008, dismissing I.A.No.629 of 2008 in O.S.No.394 of 2008 by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry filed for injunction, granting status quo with a direction to dispose of the main suit itself well within three months from the date of that order. The petitioners filed the above suit for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property and pending the suit they filed I.A.No.629 of 2008 for temporary injunction stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by one late Koppala Seshayya @ Peda Seshayya from Valla Nagamma and another, under registered sale deed, dated 15.12.1957, and the said Peda Seshayya executed a gift deed, dated 04.07.1959, in favour of his wife-Narasamma creating life interest to her and vested remainder to his only son Nageswara Rao. The 1st to 3rd petitioners are the daughters of late Koppala Nageswara Rao and Ramayamma who died in 1974 and 1989 respectively. The plaint schedule property was in possession of Koppala Ramayamma and her three daughters, after the death of Nageswara Rao and after the death of Ramayamma, it was in possession of her three daughters and they enjoyed the schedule property without any interruption. Koppala Nageswara Rao kept another woman by name Sarojini during his lifetime. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners and their mother filed O.P.No.86 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif, Rajahmundry for issuance of succession certificate against the Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railways, K.Sarojini and others, and accordingly obtained a succession certificate. The 1st to 3rd petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, after the death of their mother Ramayamma on 07.12.1991 intestate and the respondents are creating false and fictitious, sham and nominal documents purported to have been executed by K.Sarojini who is claimed to be the second wife of the petitioners’ father-Nageswara Rao and they are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The 1st respondent filed a counter traversing the averments made in the petition stating that during the life time of K.Nageswara Rao, his mother Narasamma and the children of Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/- from one Bokka Veeranna under registered mortgage deed, dated 02.06.1970, and failed to discharge the said debt and thereby the said Veeranna filed a suit and obtained a decree against them. When the schedule property was brought for sale in the said suit, K.China Venkanna, who is the brother of Pedaseshayya discharged the said debt and saved the schedule property. Subsequently, K.Nageswara Rao and others entered into an agreement for transferring one acre of land, out of the schedule land to the said K.China Venkanna who discharged the said debt. The legal heirs of K.China Venkanna filed a suit in O.S.No.527 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Rajahmundry against K.Sarojini, who is the wife of Nageswara Rao and his legal heirs, and the same was compromised, wherein Ch.Venkanna and his legal heirs got one acre and Sarojini and their children got Ac.0.88 ½ cents out of the schedule property and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 1st respondent purchased part of the schedule property from Nelli Padmavathi under registered sale deed dated 07.07.2005 and thereby he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The 2nd respondent filed separate counter and not disputed the succession certificate issued in favour of Ramayamma and others in O.P.No.86 of 1972, stating that Sarojini and her children alienated the property to the respondents in the year 1993. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent sold away the same to others and again he and his wife purchased an extent of Ac.0-61¼ cents under two registered sale deeds, dated 12.02.2007, and, thereby they are in possession and enjoyment by mutating their names in the revenue records. The 4th to 6th respondents also filed separate counter claiming that they purchased the property from Sarojini and her children to an extent of one acre out of schedule property under agreement of sale, dated 10.11.1979, and that they are in possession. No oral evidence has been adduced, except marking the documents under Ex.P1 to P16 by the plaintiffs and Exs.R1 to R59 by the respondents. The trial Court after taking into consideration of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the I.A. holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the cardinal principles viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, for grant of injunction. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of the evidence came to a conclusion that when once the petitioners are able to show that they are in possession of the petition schedule property in the year 1980, it is for the respondents to prove when the petitioners were dispossessed and when they came into possession of the same. Mere issuance of patttadar passbooks in favour of the respondents, do not confer any title on them especially when it is not shown that the pattadar passbook in favour of the mother of the 1st to 3rd petitioners was not cancelled and accordingly, allowed the appeal directing to maintain status quo. When the respondents claim that they purchased the property from K.Sarojini and others as per the sale deeds no discussion as such is made, which probably establishes that they entered into possession pursuant to the sale deeds, the finding that they failed to establish how they came into possession, will not be justified. Be that as it may, the respondents have not challenged the impugned order, as the parties are directed to maintain status quo and since they are in possession, they are satisfied with the status quo order. Admittedly there is no injunction in favour of the petitioners from the date of the suit. In view of the same, grant of injunction by revising the order of the lower appellate court at this stage, does not arise, as this court cannot reappraise the entire evidence in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the lower appellate Court while deciding the interlocutory application. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 20th August 2010 lmv