IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6204 OF 2009 Between: K. Anji Reddy and another .....PETITIONERS AND Asha Jyothi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6204 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.11.2009, in C.M.A.No.586 of 2009, on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 20.04.2009, in I.A.No.782 of 2008 in O.S.No.342 of 2008, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the petition, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedule property, was confirmed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The suit is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.782 of 2008 is filed for grant of ad-interim injunction. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and accordingly, dismissed the application. On appeal, the said order was confirmed vide the impugned order. 4. 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. 5. The petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming incidental title over the petition schedule property under a sale deed, Ex.P1, having purchased the same from Smt. Baddam Uma Devi @ Uma Rani for a valuable consideration. They obtained Pattader Pass Books and Title Deeds and also the proceedings of the Tahsildar. The petitioners also filed pahanies to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents that respondent Nos.1 and 3/defendant Nos.1 and 3 purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed from One Manchala Ravinder, who in turn purchased the same from Kandadi Uma Devi through her agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney holder. Kandadi Uma Devi’s father in turn purchased the petition schedule property from T. Chandramma @ T. Annamma and others in her name, as she was a minor at the time of purchasing the petition schedule property. Kandadi Uma Devi executed an agreement of sale – cum – general power of attorney in favour of C. Madusudhan Reddy and S. Yadagiri Goud in 2001 and subsequent to the execution, they said to have obtained mutation proceedings from the Tahsildar; dug a bore well for the purpose of cultivating the land and that till they sold the land, they have been paying the electricity consumption charges to the Electricity Department and so, they are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Therefore, it is not in dispute before this Court that the father of Kandadi Uma Devi purchased Ac.1-20 guntas of land in survey No.526 and another extent of Ac.1-20 guntas of land in survey No.529 situated at Rampally Dayara Village, Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, in the name of Kandadi Uma Devi. An affidavit was filed by Kandadi Uma Devi stating that she has not executed any agreement of sale – cum – general power of attorney. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that as Kandadi Uma Devi was a minor and she is no other than the daughter of Kandadi Dharma Reddy, who purchased the petition schedule property in the name of his minor daughter i.e., Kandadi Uma Devi, her name was found in the original sale deed as Kandadi Uma Devi and after her marriage her name was changed as Baddam Uma Devi. But, the learned counsel for the respondents seriously disputed about these aspects. So, this fact has to be decided in the suit. Therefore, the incidental title to the property has to be adjudicated in the suit. 6. It has to be seen as to who was in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. A number of pahanies are filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents. The respondents also filed certain documents with regard to the payment of electricity charges. These documents have not been taken into consideration in a right perspective. A prima facie finding has to be recorded by the Court as to who was in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit duly considering the documents filed by both the parties. 7. The third aspect of the case has to been seen by the Court is that if the injunction is not granted whether any irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff. This aspect has not at all been considered by the appellate Court. Therefore, considering these aspects, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the appellate Court so as to decide these aspects duly considering the documents filed by both the parties. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.11.2009, in C.M.A.No.586 of 2009, on the file of II Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, and remanding the matter to the appellate Court to dispose of the case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 03, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6204 OF 2009 March 03, 2011