IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2989 OF 2011 Date:30.08.2011 Between:- B.K.Nagaraj Goud .. Petitioner/Appellant And Vadla Narayana .. Respondent/respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 22.02.2011, in C.M.A.No.21 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni whereunder and whereby, the order and decretal order, dated 16.08.2010, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Adoni in I.A.No.444 of 2010 in O.S.No.105 of 2010 was modified and the said I.A. was partly allowed granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit and subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2010 and the orders in the interlocutory applications in that suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.444 of 2010 in O.S.No.105 of 2010 against the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that originally the petition schedule lands belong to his father Vadla Eranna, who died on 01.02.1983. During his life time, he executed a registered will, dated 12.01.1983, in favour of the petitioner and since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property without interruption. On the basis of documents, Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur and Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his name and his name was also entered in the revenue records. On 30.03.2010, the respondent, without any manner of right and title over the petition schedule property, along with his men, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property and threatened that he would dispossess him. Hence, the petitioner prays to grant temporary injunction. 4. The respondent filed counter denying the affidavit contents and stated that the petitioner and his three sons by name Vadla Sreenivasulu, Vadla Janardhana and Vadla Venkataramudu sold the petition schedule land to him under an agreement of sale, dated 08.10.2006, for valuable consideration of Rs.17,34,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre for total extent of Ac.34.28 cents and on the date of agreement itself, he paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and the same was acknowledged in the agreement of sale, and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the respondent has paid Rs.2,90,000/- on 14.11.2006, Rs.2,00,000/- on 17.04.2007 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.02.2008 to the petitioner and his three sons and the same was also endorsed on the back of the agreement of sale, and possession was delivered to him. Since then, the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land without anybody’s interruption. Though the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the petitioner and his three sons were not coming forward to execute a regular sale deed in his favour. The respondent got issued a legal notice, dated 29.05.2010, to the petitioner and his three sons calling upon them to execute a regular sale deed in his favour and to receive the balance sale consideration but of no use. The respondent surveyed the petition schedule land with the help of Mandal Surveyor of Yemmiganur, and the report of Mandal Surveyor shows only an extent of Ac.27.16 cents but not Ac.34.28 cents. On 04.06.2009, the petitioner filed an application before the Revenue authorities for surveying his land. Since the date of delivery of possession by the petitioner and his three sons, the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land and the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The trial Court, upon considering the material on record, granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. On appeal, the said order was modified slightly confirming the injunction pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2010, which was filed by the respondent to enforce an agreement of contract. Challenging the same, respondent filed the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that as per Ex.R-1-sale agreement, dated 08.10.2006, a recital was incorporated to that effect that on payment of second instalment, the possession of the petition schedule property shall be delivered to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- on 14.11.2006 and thereafter, possession was delivered to him, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 7. Grant or refusal of injunction is covered by three well established principles, namely, (1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 8. With regard to the title of the property is concerned, Ex.R-1- agreement of sale does not confer any right unless it is transformed into a regular sale deed. Admittedly, the respondent herein/plaintiff was the owner of the property. He got the property under Ex.P-1- registered will, dated 12.01.1983, and thereafter, pattadar passbooks and title deeds have been issued in his favour and his three sons. They have also filed No.3 adangal, which shows that the respondent and his three sons were in possession of the property. Admittedly, as on 14.11.2006, the respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, possession was delivered to him, but there is no proof to show that the possession of the same was delivered to the petitioner after payment of the second instalment. If really the possession was delivered to the petitioner, the same would have been endorsed on Ex.R-1. Therefore, in the absence of any other evidence to show that possession was delivered to the petitioner on 14.11.2006, the petitioner is not entitled to injunction. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the Courts below need no interference by this Court. However, the injunction shall be continued till the disposal of O.S.No.16 of 2010 only, and the trial Court shall dispose of O.S.No.16 of 2010 as early as possible, subject to other Part Heard and Old Cases. 9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th August, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2989 OF 2011 Date:30.08.2011 AMD