IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4189 of 2007 BETWEEN: Chimata Venkateswarlu and another … APPELLANT(S) And Chimata Saraswathi and others … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4189 of 2007 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this revision is whether the order dated 09.04.2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali (appellate Court), in CMA No.8 of 2006 granting a temporary prohibitory injunction in favour of plaintiff pending disposal of her suit suffers from any illegality or material irregularity calling for interference by this Court. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are petitioners in this revision. The trial Court i.e. the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, dismissed the plaintiff’s temporary injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.443 of 2005 in her suit O.S.No.147 of 2005. Against that the plaintiff filed CMA No.8 of 2006 and that was allowed by the appellate Court granting temporary injunction and it is against that order the present CRP is filed by the defendants 1 and 2. The suit property consists of two items of agricultural land i.e. Acs.0-46½ cents in Sy.No.363/4 and Ac.0-83 cents in Sy.No.365 of Chinthalapalem village. The plaintiff is claiming it through one Avula Parvathamma through a registered settlement deed dated 12.08.2004. The plaintiff also filed Ex.P.1 sale deed dated 07.02.2000 of Avula Parvathamma and Exs.P.2 to P.4 which are the revenue passbook, title deed and cist receipt of Parvathamma to show that Parvathamma was the owner prior to Ex.P.6 settlement deed. The plaintiff further filed Ex.P.5 and P.7 – 10(1) Adangal extract and certified copy of No.2 Adangal to show that she is in possession of the suit property. Her plea is that defendants were interfering with her possession without any manner of right. 3. The stand of defendants 1 and 2 is that second defendant earlier purchased the suit property under Ex.R.1 registered sale deed dated 27.11.1982 from Chimata Kondaiah the original owner of the suit property and that subsequently she also obtained Exs.R.2 and R.3 pattedar passbook and title deed given by the revenue authorities to show that she is the owner of the property. The plaintiff’s version is that earlier Chimata Kondaiah suffered an ex parte decree in a specific performance suit i.e. O.S.No.485 of 1998 on the file of the trial Court and pursuant to Ex.P.8 decree dated 03.02.1999 Shyamala Devi the vendor of Parvathamma obtained title to the suit property through Court sale and thereafter the said Shyamala Devi sold the suit property to Parvathamma. Defendants 3 and 4 stated that they have nothing to do with the suit property and have been impleaded unnecessarily. 4. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 (revision petitioners herein) pointed out that Parvathamma, the plaintiff and Shyamala Devi are all related and that to defeat the rights of the second defendant they filed the suit O.S.485 of 1998 and obtained ex parte decree and created all the documents which were filed by the plaintiff. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 pointed out about the relationships but they are not pleaded in the counter of defendants 1 and 2 filed in the trial Court and hence it may not be proper to go into the same now. 5. What should be noted is that the plaintiff filed Ex.P.7 certified copy of the No.2 Adangal and it shows that for the faslies 1414, 1413 and 1412 which may correspond to the years 2004, 2003 and 2002 the plaintiff is shown as possessor of the suit property. This Ex.P.7 shows that it was issued by the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Jaladanki. Defendants 1 and 2 except filing Exs.R.1 sale deed and Exs.R.2 and R.3 pattedar’s passbook and title deed did not file any adangal to show that the second defendant is in possession. 6. So far as the validity of the sale deeds and revenue passbooks and title deeds filed by both sides, nothing can be said about them one way or the other in these interlocutory proceedings. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 relied upon a decision of this Court given in CHINNAM PANDURANGAM vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, SERILINGAMPALLY[1] and a decision of our Honourable Supreme Court given in SREE JAIN SWETAMBAR TERAPANTHI VID(S) vs. PHUNDAN SINGH[2] to show that the appellate Court went wrong in granting the temporary injunction. 7. The decision given in CHINNAM PANDURANGAM’s case (1 supra) relates to the procedure to be adopted under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and it says that whenever entries in the revenue record are to be changed notice to the interested persons should be given. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 says that the pattedar passbook and title deed of the second defendant are of 1996 and the pattedar passbook and the revenue title deed of the plaintiff or her vendor are of 2000 and consequently her title deed and passbook should be rejected. The decision given in PHUNDAN SINGH’s case (2 supra) relates to the question as to how an appellate Court should dispose of an appeal against an interlocutory injunction order and it lays down that where the appellate Court does not give any reasons for its conclusions about the establishment of a prima facie case by the plaintiff such order cannot be sustained. 8. It may be noted that with regard to the principle laid down in PHUNDAN SINGH’s case (2 supra), perusal of the order of the appellate Court shows that it considered the documents filed by both sides but ultimately it went by the adangal pahanis filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.P.7 which show her possession over the suit property for the relevant period. It is now settled that where a temporary injunction is claimed by a party for protection of his possession what the Court should consider is about the possession of the party claiming the temporary injunction and it cannot be expected to decide about title. The order of the appellate Court shows that it considered the matter regarding the possession and basing on the above adangal copies (cultivation account copies) it held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case inasmuch as defendants 1 and 2 failed to file any cultivation account copies to show the possession of second defendant though she claimed to have purchased the suit property in 1982 vide her Ex.R.1 sale deed. 9. Thus it cannot be said that the appellate Court, though it reversed the order of the trial Court, did not consider the required material or record reasons for granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Then coming to the CHINNAM PANDURANGAM’s case (1 supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendants 1 and 2, it may be noted that they did not file any material to show that the revenue authorities issued the pattedar passbook and the revenue title deed to the plaintiff without holding any enquiry. They could have as well applied for the copies of the proceedings pursuant to which the revenue authorities gave the pattedar passbook and the title deed to the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff obtained the same irregularly. Thus this is a matter which has to be decided in the suit on evidence and nothing can be said about the same now. It should be noted here that in DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. M.S.S.FOOD PRODUCTS[3] relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) it has been held that in a temporary injunction petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC the Court cannot decide about even prima facie authenticity of documents filed by both sides. This decision supports the plaintiff’s contention that the validity of her documents or the documents of the second defendant cannot be considered at this stage. 10. To repeat, it should be noted that the appellate Court relied upon No.2 Adangal i.e. cultivation copies filed by the plaintiff and held that she made out a prima facie case regarding her possession which is the essential requirement for granting a temporary injunction. Following this finding it also held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury factors are also in her favour. It is well settled that this Court in a revision cannot reverse the order of the appellate Court just because another view is possible on evidence and defendants 1 and 2 did not show any circumstance also which compels a different view in the matter. In the circumstances their case has to be considered in detail in the suit only. 11. Accordingly the point is decided against revision petitioners i.e. defendants 1 and 2 and this CRP is dismissed. No costs. The trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 15th February 2011 CVRK [1] 2007 (6) ALT 134 (F.B.) [2] AIR 1999 SC 2322 [3] (2005) 3 SCC 63