THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.650 OF 2010 J U D G M E N T: Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. He instituted the suit, O.S.No. 31 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Asifabad, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, their relatives and their farm servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land, comprising of Ac.12.00 falling in Survey Nos. 183/1 and 183/2 of Akenapalli Village, Bellampally Mandal, Adilabad District. The plaintiff has gone to the Court with an averment that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and that he has purchased land to an extent of Ac.6.00 situate in Survey No. 183 from one Palakula Chandraiah on 12.04.1980 and land to an extent of Ac.2.00 from one Talla Venkati and he has also purchased another extent of Ac.4.00 from Venkata Muthyam Rao and thereafter, he was in continuous and exclusive possession of the entire extent of Ac.12.00 of land and on the ground that the defendants/respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession, he sought for perpetual injunction against them. The respondents/defendants have contested the suit, pointing out that the land in Survey No. 183 was originally belonging to their grand-father, to an extent of Ac.6.00, as he was a protected tenant under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act and that the balance Ac.6.00 of land was held by Venkata Muthyam Rao. It is further stated that after the death of the grand-father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the husband of the 2nd defendant, it was cultivated by the parties jointly and together and the fact that the grand-father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was in possession of the land in question has been shown in Ex.B3, Pahani Patrika, for the year 1954-55. Therefore, they have resisted the suit for perpetual injunction, as the defendants are also co-owners and they cannot be restrained by grant of such injunction. It was further pointed out that the plaintiff/appellant has created three sada sale deeds to show as if he has purchased the said lands and he has approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, in terms of Section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 5A of the aforementioned Act, issued a certificate in favour of the appellant/plaintiff declaring the document of transfer in his favour as valid from the date of issuance of such certificate. In other words, by issuing the certificate in Form XIII B, the Mandal Revenue Officer has validated the sale deed through which the plaintiff/appellant is said to have acquired the said land. By virtue of the provision contained in sub-section (4) of Section 5A of the 1971 Act, such certificate shall become evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. The defendants have pointed out that they have carried the matter by way of an appeal under Section 5-B of the aforementioned Act, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, who passed orders on 18.10.2000, holding that after examining the entire records and after perusing the enquiry report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampally, the validation of sale made by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampally is held as illegal and hence, set aside the certificate issued in Form XIII B by the Mandal Revenue Officer and remanded the entire case back to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampally for conducting de novo enquiry. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff/appellant carried the matter by way of revision in terms of Section 9 of the aforementioned Act to the Joint Collector, Adilabad. After detailed examination, the Joint Collector, Adilabad, through his proceedings, dated 06.02.2006, has rejected the revision and upheld the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, remanding the matter back for de novo enquiry. It is, therefore, sought to be contended by the defendants that the claim of the plaintiff/appellant to be in exclusive possession of the suit schedule land and the title set up by him to that effect are not at all well-founded. After a proper and careful analysis of the evidence that was brought before the Court, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/appellant went in appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad by instituting A.S.No. 25 of 2007. The learned Senior Civil Judge again considered the entire material on record and found as a fact that the plaintiff/appellant claim to be in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property is not held established. The reliance sought to be placed by the plaintiff/appellant upon the pahanis,which were the result of his assertion of acquisition of title through three sada sale deeds in his favour, cannot be looked into for the present, inasmuch as the enquiry in terms of Section 5A of the aforementioned Act is still pending before the competent Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampally and hence, dismissed the appeal. This Second Appeal is thus preferred against the decrees and judgments rendered by the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in great detail. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that for decreeing a suit for perpetual injunction, one is not required to examine or go into the issue relating to the title to the property and it is enough if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate his possession vis-à-vis the defendants. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the findings recorded to the contrary by both the Courts below are perverse findings, requiring interference by this Court. I am afraid, that the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant is merit less, for, until and unless the plaintiff is able to establish his title to the suit schedule land and consequently, exclusive possession thereof, he cannot seek a perpetual injunction against the defendants, particularly when the defendants have shown that Ac.6.00 of the suit schedule property is inherited from their grand-father and hence, they have right of co-ownership. It is a settled principle of law that before granting perpetual injunction, the exclusivity of the possession should be examined and also regard must be had for the title to the suit schedule land. When both the issues are in doubt and they are yet to be established in view of the pendency of the enquiry, under Section 5A of the 1971 Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampally, I am not in a position to come to a conclusion that the Courts below have committed any illegality in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court cannot be interfered with in this Second Appeal, particularly, in the absence of a substantial question of law that falls for consideration of this Court. Hence, I see no reason to entertain this Second Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 23rd July 2010 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JMR}