HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 4422 OF 2009. DATED 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN Chekka Sai Sudarshan and anr ….Petitioners and Kuricheri Pandu Ranga Rao … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 4422 OF 2009. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed in I.A.No. 10 of 2009 in O.S.No. 25 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application ﬁled by the petitioners/plaintiﬀs under Section 42(C) of the A.P. Agency Rules, The petitioners herein are the plaintiﬀs in O.S.No. 25 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam. The relief sought for in the said OS is as follows: “ (a) Perpetually restraining the defendant, his men, servants, subordinates, agents and his henchmen, claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiﬀs over the suit schedule road in any manner (b) to award costs of the suit, and (c) to grant any other relief or reliefs for which the Honourable Court may deems to ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” The case of the plaintiﬀs as set out in the plaint in brief is: Plaintiﬀs 1 and 2 are the natural brothers and grand sons of one Chekka Sudarshan Das of Bhadrachalam town. The said Chekka Sudarshan Das executed a Will dated 06.01.1985 bequeathing his properties and under the said Will, the plaintiﬀs got open land to an extent of 64.00 Square yards and they have been using the said land as cattle shed and recently as nursery. The plaintiﬀs and their predecessors have been using the said open land to enter into their land from the existing road. The defendant executed an agreement of sale on 31.3.1979 in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiﬀs with regard to the said existing road after receiving sale consideration of Rs.3,200/-. While so, on 12.8.2009, the defendant along with his men came to the suit schedule site and tried to obstruct the petitioners/plaintiﬀs and their men from using the suit schedule land to enter into their land. Hence, the petitioners/plaintiﬀs ﬁled the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction. They also moved an application being I.A.No. 10 of 2009 under Section 42(C) of the A.P. Agency Rules seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, the petitioners/plaintiﬀs pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a temporary injunction order against the respondent/defendant and his men, agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession of the schedule land till the disposal of the main suit in the interest of justice.” The respondent/defendant ﬁled counter resisting the application of the plaintiﬀs. The respondent denied the execution of the alleged agreement of sale and also denied the right of the petitioners/plaintiﬀs over the plaint schedule property. He has taken the plea that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of the subject matter of the property in the suit being O.S.No. 18 of 2009. In paragraphs 10, 11and 12 of the Counter aﬃdavit, the respondent stated as follows: “ I further submit that the contention of the plaintiﬀs that there exists a compound wall from the panchayat road to their land is an absolute false and concocted one and in fact no such compound wall exists. Further as per the rough sketch ﬁled the plaintiﬀs as material documentNo.3 along with the plaint, itself establish that, the plaintiﬀs have no property with in the boundaries mentioned in the suit property. Therefore, I submit that the petitioners/plaintiﬀs have ﬁled the above I.A. as well as the suit without any cause of action and without having any manner of right, title interest more particularly possession over the schedule property. I submit when the schedule property being the part of the property fell to the share of my third son Kuricheti Srinivasa Rao and is in his possession and covered by the order of the honourable Court dated 3.8.2009 in I.A.No. 3 of 2009 in O.S.No. 18 of 2009, the question of my interference with the petitioners/plaintiﬀs on 12.8.2009 and 14.8.2009 does not arise and is a more concoction for purpose of the suit as well as the IA., with the sole object to obtain ex parte order with ill motive. I submit that it is pertinent hereto bring to the notice of the Honourable Court that, after obtaining the ex parte order dated 17.8.2009 the plaintiﬀs have got served caveat petition on this defendant, where in the plaintiﬀs have altered the suit schedule property by mentioning as ‘compound wall and vacant land of the defendant’ on the northern side of the suit schedule property where as they have no mentioned as such in the plaint schedule. I submit that in fact no such compound wall is in existence and this fact clearly establish that, the petitioners/plaintiﬀs are not only making eﬀorts to exhibit some thing which never exists and on the other hand it clinchingly establish that the present suit schedule property is no other than the part of the schedule property in O.S.No. 18 of 2009 covered by the order dated 3.8.2009 in the possession and enjoyment of my third son viz., Kuricheti Srinivasa Rao. I submit that the petitioners/plaintiﬀs failed to establish any prima facie case balance of convenience or irreparable loss and on the other hand I am establishing that the petitioners have ﬁled the above suit and IA not only without having possession there on but also without having any manner of right, title or interest and more particularly on the strength of the forged and fabricated agreement of sale dated 31.3.1979.” The learned Sub divisional Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, came to the conclusion that the execution of the agreement of sale is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1970 and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 11.09.2009. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiﬀs and the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiﬀs submits that the petitioners/plaintiﬀs are claiming only easement right over the suit schedule property and unless the right of passage of the petitioners/plaintiﬀs is protected pending the suit, the very purpose of ﬁling the suit will be defeated. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the subject matter of property in the present suit is the part and parcel of the schedule property in O.S.No. 18 of 2009, wherein an interim order has been passed in favour of the third son of the defendant and in order to overcome the said interim order, the petitioners/plaintiﬀs have ﬁled the present suit and secured ex parte ad-interim injunction. The petitioners/plaintiﬀs claimed that their grandfather purchased the suit schedule land under the agreement of sale 31.3.1979. At the same time, they also pleaded that they got easement right over the suit schedule property. The ownership right and the easement right over the self same property cannot go together. It appears that the petitioners/plaintiﬀs had ﬁled an application seeking their impleadment in O.S.No. 18 of 2009. The subject matter of the property in O.S.No. 25 of 2009 is stated to be part and parcel of the subject matter in O.S.No. 18 of 2009. Once agreement of sale pressed into service is in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1970, it cannot be said that the plaintiﬀs/petitioners have made out a prima facie case in their favour. I do not see any ﬂaw in the order impugned in this revision. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. SESASAYANA REDDY Dated 24th November, 2009. Msnr.