THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.705 of 2010 26.4.2010 Between Valasapalli Sree Nagalakshmi, D/o.Madhusudana Rao … Petitioner AND Valasapalli Prameela, W/o.Rama Venkata Satyanarayana And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.705 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is second defendant in O.S.No.351 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. First respondent (hereafter, plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant in respect of land admeasuring Acs.3.62 in survey No.312/5 situated at Konizerla Village of Chinthalapudi Mandal in West Godavari District (hereafter, schedule property). He filed I.A.No.3163 of 2005 for ad interim injunction. The trial Court dismissed I.A. on 16.12.2005. Plaintiff then filed CMA No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge (Family Court), Eluru. By impugned order dated 01.7.2009, CMA was allowed and ad interim injunction was granted. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein who is subsequent purchaser from first defendant filed the present civil revision petition. The case of the plaintiff is that the property originally belonged to her mother-in-law, Maddiravamma. At the time of marriage of her daughter, Damayanti Devi (first defendant, Maddiravamma utilized money of plaintiff. During her last days, she suffered paralysis and was bed ridden. Plaintiff took care of her. Maddiravamma executed a Will dated 22.2.2002 bequeathing schedule property. The Will was attested by first defendant and her father. Maddiravamma died on 23.5.2002. Thereafter disputes arose and to deprive plaintiff of schedule property, first defendant executed registered sale deed dated 22.6.2005 in favour of second defendant. Hence the suit. Plaintiff also alleged in the affidavit accompanying the I.A., that after death of her mother-in-law, she obtained Pattadar Pass Book-Ex.A5, and Title Deed-Ex.A6, and is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property. First defendant opposed the suit as well as I.A., for injunction. Her case was that at the time of her marriage, schedule property was given to her as pasupu-kunkuma and to that effect her mother executed a settlement deed on 01.3.2002, that she alone has right to the schedule property and that sale deed executed by her in favour of second defendant is valid. She disputed the possession with plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., observing that even as per Exs.A4 and A6, the schedule property in possession of plaintiff is Acs.2.86 and, therefore, she is not entitled to ad interim injunction. Be it noted, during the pendency of I.A., plaintiff filed application for amendment. Before the appellate Court which reconsidered the entire evidence on record, it was contended that actual area bequeathed under Ex.A1 Will was Acs.3.62 and to that effect amendment was sought. Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that first defendant failed to prove her possession to the property. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner. He raised same submissions which were raised before the trial Court as well as appellate Court. On probabilities, the appellate Court rightly concluded that it is the plaintiff who has proved prima facie case and balance of convenience is in her favour. Further, under Section 6A(5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, there is a presumption regarding title in favour of pass book bolder. Necessary entries are also made in the pass book with regard to person in possession and the same cannot easily be ignored. Second defendant did not lead any independent rebuttal evidence to dislodge the statutory presumption. Therefore the discretion exercised by the appellate Court is sound and does not warrant interference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) April 26, 2010. YS