IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 639 OF 2011 Between : E.Sanjeeva Reddy …APPELLANT A N D E.Nageswara Reddy and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 639 of 2011 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the order, dated 06.06.2011 in I.A.No.320 of 2011 in O.S.No.120 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) against the respondents (defendants), their men and agents etc., restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land, was dismissed and ad-interim injunction granted on 24.03.2011 till 15.04.2011 in favour of the appellant against the respondents and extended from time to time stands vacated. 2. O.S.No.120 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, was filed by the appellant herein for grant permanent injunction against the respondents, their men and agents. The said suit was made over to Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool for disposal in accordance with law. Pending suit, the above Interlocutory Application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad-interim junction against the respondents. After hearing both parties, the trial court dismissed the application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) contended that the then Tahsildar, Kurnool Taluk granted Ex.A.1-D-Form patta in favour of the appellant; that since the date of issuance of Ex.A.1, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the same has not been cancelled; that the trial Court without discussing the documents filed by the respondents came to one side conclusion by observing that the documents filed by the appellant were forged documents and hence, he prays to remand the matter to the trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents (defendants) contended that the patta in which the appellant was claiming title over the property is not the same patta which was granted to one Kasi Reddy, related to different property; that the appellant failed to establish his prima facie case, balance convenience and irreparable injury, that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The dispute is in respect of Ac.3.50 cents of land in survey No.16/2A1, situated at B.Thandrapadu Village of Kurnool Taluk now within the limits of Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. By virtue of order, dated 01.10.1976, Ex.A.1- D form patta was granted to the appellant under Ex-serviceman quota. Since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. But, the respondents contended that they purchased the land from one Kasi Reddy, which was assigned by way of patta in the year 1989 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. 6. Grant or refusal of injunction are guided of three well established principles viz., 1) prima facie case 2) balance of convenience and 3) irreparable injury if injunction is not granted 7. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the patta number is not tallying with other documents, which has not placed any reliance on Ex.A.1 D-form patta. In the counter it is specifically stated by the respondents that Ex.A.1 is fabricated one. So, there is a serious dispute with regard to correctness of Ex.A.1 document. At this stage the finding if any given by the trial Court on this aspect is only prima facie finding and that cannot be a final finding so as to arrive at a particular conclusion. The respondents filed Ex.B2-Registered sale deed, dated, dated 22.11.2010, under which respondent Nos.1 to 4 purchased the property from one Kasi Reddy. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, has issued Ex.B1- patta in favour of Kasi Reddy in the year 1989. The respondents also filed Adangal copies to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, in view of rival contentions raised by both the parties, the prima facie case at this stage cannot be decided. 8. Coming to the balance of convenience, the appellant filed Ex.A.9-copy of Adangal for Fasli 1399, issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool, equivalent to 1980, to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit is filed in the year 2011. As on the date of filing of the suit not even a single document was filed to show that the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. On the other hand, the respondents filed Ex.B.7 –No.3 Adangal, issued by Tahsildar for Fasli 1420; Ex.B.21-True copy of T.B. Register for Khata Nos. 579 to 582; Ex.B.22-True copy of Adangal for Fasli 1418 issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool and Ex.B.23-True copy of Adangal for Fasli 1419 issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool which are subsequent Adangals than Ex.A.9, which would go to show that the respondents are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the appellant fails to establish that he was in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. 9. Coming to irreparable injury, since the land in question is a hill track, no injury would be caused to the appellant even if injunction is not granted to him. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the property, he can as well claim the damages in terms of money for use and occupation from the respondents. Therefore, all the three well established principles have not been proved, prima facie at this stage so as to grant a discretionary relief of injunction. The trial Court rightly refused to grant injunction in favour of the appellant and that order needs no interference by this Court. However, making it clear that any observations made in the I.A. by the trial Court is only for the purpose of disposal of the application. The findings or observations, if any, in the said I.A. shall not be treated as findings of the trial Court while deciding the issues in the suit. The suit has to be disposed of in accordance with the evidence adduced by both the parties subject to other part-heard or trial cases. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 YVL