HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4096 OF 2010 DATE:17-09-2010 BETWEEN Ganha Chellayyamma & Another …Petitioners AND Kuramdas Kanakalingeswara Rao Pedda & others. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4096 OF 2010 ORDER: This Revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs to revise the order of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada passed in C.M.A.No.29 of 2009, dated 29.6.2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-defendants against the injunction order granted in I.A.No.1683 of 2006 in O.S.No.1289 of 2006 by II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 12.4.2007 was allowed directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to GHID suit schedule property. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit, for the sake of convenience. The revision petitioners-plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.1289 of 2006 for declaration of their ownership over the plaint EFGH portion of the property and for handing over vacant possession of the same from the defendants-respondents herein; to declare that they are the owners of HCID portion and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment over HGID of plaint schedule property. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1683 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction alleging that the defendants 1 and 2, in the year 2000, encroached into the EFGH portion of the plaint plan measuring 82.2 sq.yds. of site without having any right or title and constructed a house therein; that towards southern side of the EFGH portion occupied by the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs are having a vacant site of 82.2 sq.yds., which is shown as HGID portion in the plaint plan; and that the defendants are making efforts to encroach upon the said HGID portion without any manner of right. Contesting the said I.A., the defendants contended that the first defendant is the nephew of the third defendant’s father and the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant; that the third defendant and his brother gifted the site to the first defendant due to love and affection; and that the first defendant got constructed a small house thereon. It is contended that the schedule property does not belong to the plaintiff; that the same does not cover under the alleged registration extract of sale deed, dated 28.2.1956 which is marked as Ex.P.1, on which basis, the plaintiffs are claiming title and possession. The further case of the defendants is that under the partition deed-Ex.R.1, dated 24.6.1938, the property fell to the share of Garisetti Chinna Nookanna and its western side boundary is referred to as ‘a passage between Pukella Venkat Reddy and Garisetti Chinna Nookanna’. The trial Court relying upon Ex.P.2, a receipt issued by e-Seva for payment of electricity bill in favour of first plaintiff, dated 16.2.2006; Ex.P.3-bunch of house-tax receipts standing in the name of Gandha Thatharao; Ex.P.4-registration extract of partition deed; Ex.P.5-property tax demand notice; Ex.P.6-receipt for payment of electricity bill amount, concluded that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly granted injunction in their favour. On appeal being filed by the defendants, the lower appellate Court considered the boundaries in partition deed-Ex.R.1, observed that Exs.R.4 to R.15 are in respect of the house property allegedly covered by EFGH which is admittedly in possession of the defendants and those documents have no bearing to determine the rights of the parties in respect of HGID vacant site and at the same time, Exs.P.2, P.3 and P.5 to P.8, on which, the plaintiffs are relying have no bearing in respect of the disputed vacant site allegedly in possession of the plaintiffs as on the date of filing of the suit; and that from the complaint made by the defendants against the plaintiffs, it can be concluded that the plaintiffs under the guise of temporary injunction are making constructions in the vacant site covered by the present application even before adjudication of disputes in between the plaintiffs and defendants over the vacant site. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court set aside the injunction order granted by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and restrained both the parties from making any constructions by directing them to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property with a further direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months. It is now fairly well settled that for grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three well established principles viz., (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case; (2) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff i.e. whether it would cause greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the opposite party would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted; and (3) whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury. With the first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the plaintiff conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle the plaintiff to obtain a temporary injunction in his favour. In the present case, when Exs.P.2, P.3 and P.5 to P.8 do not pertain to the suit schedule property as observed by the lower appellate Court and as the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession to establish the prima facie case, they are not entitled to temporary injunction in a suit for declaration until the declaration is granted on adducing the evidence. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court setting aside the injunction granted by the trail Court and directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule property does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting correction in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 Tsr.