THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2655 of 2009 Dated:30.10.2009 Between: K.Dharamveer .. Petitioner AND Bola Narayana and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009, dated 05.06.2009 by which an order of status quo was granted against both the parties in respect of the subject property reversing the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medak in I.A.No.205 of 2008 in O.S.No.56 of 2008, dated 07.11.2008. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.56 of 2008 claiming that he is the owner, possessor and title holder in respect of Ac.0.03 gts., in Survey No.478 and Ac.0.08 gts., in Survey No.478/AA, making a total of Ac.0.11 gts., in one block described in the schedule and he purchased the same from one Ramchander Rao, the original owner, under a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1982. The 1st respondent herein claimed that his name was mutated in the revenue records and he claimed to have further purchased another Ac.0.08 gts., in Survey No.478/AA from the wife of Ramchander Rao, after his death under a registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2003. In respect of this Ac.0.08 gts., subsequently purchased, the revenue authorities, for reasons best known, did not transfer the ownership in the name of the 1st respondent herein and the 1st respondent herein claimed that the revision petitioner herein was trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the said Ac.0.08 gts., claiming to be owning the same. Consequently, he filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and I.A.No.205 of 2008 for a temporary injunction. The revision petitioner resisted the claim of the 1st respondent herein contending that he purchased Ac.0.30 gts., from G.Rajamani Devi in Survey No.478/AA/7, under a registered sale deed, dated 09.02.1993 and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since then, the land having been mutated in his name and the pattedar pass book and title deed having been issued in his name. He further claimed that when the plaintiff and his sons trespassed into the lands, he had to file O.S.No.89 of 2004 for a permanent injunction and also had to obtain an interim injunction pending the suit. Those facts were suppressed by the 1st respondent herein in his suit and Ramchander Rao had no saleable right in the suit survey number by the time of the alleged purchases by the 1st respondent. He also claimed to have installed a statue of his father late Sri K.Narayana, who was a Freedom Fighter, in the suit land on 02.08.2007. Hence, he sought for rejection of the request for an interim injunction. During the enquiry into the petition, the trial Court marked Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 to B17 and in the order rendered by it, on merits, observed that there was discrepancy in the name of the father of the plaintiff between Ex.A1 on the one hand and Exs.A3 to A5 on the other. It is also observed that the plaintiff did not mention about the earlier suit between him and the 1st respondent in the suit and suppressed the real facts. As no pattedar pass book and title deed of the plaintiff were filed and as no pahanies for the years 2002 to 2008 were produced, the trial Court held that prima facie possession and balance of convenience were not proved by the plaintiff, who did not approach the Court with clean hands. As the trial Court felt that the plaintiff has to succeed or fail on the strength of his own case, it dismissed the injunction petition without costs. When it came to C.M.A.No.3 of 2009, the learned Senior Civil Judge in the impugned order considered the discrepancy in the name of the father of the plaintiff in the sale deeds and pahanies and felt that even as per the documents of the revision petitioner herein, the total extent of Survey No.478/AA is Acs.5.19 gts., and Exs.B7 and B8 themselves show that Ramchander Rao was the pattedar and possessor of the entire extent. The first appellate Court also observed that it was not clarified, as to how the name of Guruvala Rangamma found place in the Khasra pahani and the learned Judge opined that as it was only the prima facie case that has to be considered at the interlocutory stage, the purchase and possession of the plaintiff were sought to be probablised by the sale deeds and the pahanies. The first appellate Court came to the ex facie conclusion that the properties claimed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are different and any earlier litigation is of no consequence. The first appellate Court, therefore, considered that the trial Court should have granted an order of status quo instead of dismissing the petition. In the circumstances, it consequently set aside the order of the trial Court and directed maintenance of status quo till the disposal of the suit. The revision petitioner questioned the said order herein on the ground that the 1s respondent herein, who did not even give proper boundaries and did not produce any satisfactory evidence in support of his earlier possession, could not have been favoured with any order of status quo on the evidence placed before the appellate Court. Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, apart from reiterating the contentions of the revision petitioner and referring to his documents, submitted that after the dismissal of the petition for injunction by the trial Court and before the appellate Court granted the order of status quo, the revision petitioner obtained permission for construction of shops in 324 square yards from the Gram Panchayat on 12.01.2009. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel produced a copy of the approved plan and submitted that the construction was half way through when the order of status quo was granted. Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, produced a photograph of the disputed site and submitted that under the guise of the construction in 324 square yards, the revision petitioner had encroached the entire disputed property by a compound wall, except for some space left in the compound wall for ingress and egress into the disputed property. The point for consideration is about the manner in which the rights and interests of both parties have to be safeguarded, pending final determination of the suit on merits. It is seen from the documents of title of both parties that the entry of the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent into the respective properties, was way back in 1992 and 1993, though Ex.A2 sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein was in the year 2003. The purchase, therefore, could not have been with any eye on the subsequent litigation that arose after a number of years and the respective claims of ownership and possession of the properties purchased by them cannot be presumed to be vitiated by any extraneous reasons. Ex facie, it appears that there was overlapping of claims over the same piece of land, as having been purchased by the parties, and it may not be appropriate to express any positive opinion about such claims of title and possession at the stage of interlocutory adjudication. While it is true that notwithstanding the discrepancy about the name of the father of the plaintiff, the registered sale deeds and pahanies filed by him, undoubtedly, offer prima facie evidence in support of his claims, while it is equally so in respect of the revision petitioner also. As observed by the appellate Court, the properties claimed by the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent are different properties overlapping to some extent, which has to be thrashed out during the trial. However, insofar as the possession of 324 square yards, over which shops are being constructed with permission from the Gram Panchayat by the revision petitioner is concerned, the said land of 324 square yards is not the subject of conflict about possession between the parties, even according to the 1st respondent, and as the construction is half way through, it can be permitted to be proceeded with, subject to the final result of the suit, with the revision petitioner not being conferred with any right to claim any equities because of such constructions and, so far as the compound wall is concerned, as seen from the photograph produced by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, in view of the pending suit and conflicting claims, the said compound wall should be left in the same state till the final determination of the suit, as it is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein that under the guise of completing the compound wall, his client will be totally excluded from entering into even the property, which was admittedly purchased by him under Ex.A1. Such an arrangement pending the suit appears to meet the interests of substantial justice and the Civil Revision has to be ordered accordingly. In the result, the judgment and decree in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, dated 05.06.2009 are modified by permitting the revision petitioner to proceed with the construction in 324 square yards in accordance with the permission obtained by him from the Gram Panchayat on 12.01.2009, without any right to claim any equities because of such constructions, and subject to the final result of the suit, while both parties shall maintain status quo concerning the compound wall around the subject properties till the final determination of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 30th October 2009 KH