IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5534 OF 2009 Between : Mariam Bee and others ....Petitioners A N D Badrunnisa Begum …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5534 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 14.10.2009, in C.M.A. No.15 of 2009, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby the appeal filed against the order and decree, dated 01.06.2009 in I.A. No.155 of 2009 in O.S. No.30 of 2009, on the file of the Junior Ciivl Judge, Armoor, was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present civil revision petition are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The schedule property consists of house bearing No.12-113 situated at Bheemgal. 5. It is the case of plaintiff that her husband late Syed Azeezullah was the owner and possessor of the property and after obtaining necessary permission, she started construction, and when the construction was going on, the respondents objected for the same. Hence the suit. 6. The defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the open plot where it is denied that and the petitioners intends to usurp the same and therefore, no injunction can be granted. 7. The trial court upon considering the documents of both the parties directed both parties to maintain status-quo. Against, the said quo order, an appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. On appeal the status- quo order is modified, granting injunction in favour of plaintiff as prayed for. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Grant or refusal of temporary injunction is guided by the three well-settled principles, Viz., one prima facie title, possession over the property and balance of convenience. Among the three ingredients the first ingredient is sine qua non for grant of injunction. The plaintiff did not file any single document to show as to how she got a right to construct a building in the suit schedule premises i.e., the vacant site. Though she filed house tax receipts, they are not relating to the vacant place which is under dispute. These documents received were relating to the payment of taxes to the municipality for her house bearing No. 12-113. Exs.P2, P4, P5 and P6 are the ownership certificates and approved plans said to have been approved by the concerned. Those certificates did not confer any right on the parties. The plaintiff failed to establish that she has got a prima facie title in respect of vacant site. Both the courts below passed an order, without adverting to the fact that whether the plaintiff / petitioner was having prima facie title over the property, in respect of the suit schedule premises. Hence both the courts committed a grave illegality in granting such orders. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Colgate Palmolive (Indian) Ltd., Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd., [1]it is held that: “ On the factual analyses as above, would we be justified in ascribing the grant of the order of injunction by the Commission that the same is in accordance with the known principles of law and the factors which ought to weigh with the court in the matter of grant of injunction as indicated above-the answer obviously cannot possibly be in the affirmative. The rigours of American Cyanamid (1975) 1 A11 ER 504: 1975 AC 396 (HL) and subsequent modulations thereof by the other English decisions along with the observations of Laddie, J. (supra) do not in any event run counter to the observations as above. The decision of this Court in Antox India ( 1990 Supp SCC 727) cannot but lend concurrence to the view expressed above to the effect that the object of interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against the injury by reason of violation of his right and relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before the uncertainty could be resolved – three specific features available in the complaint have not in any way been disturbed by reason of lack of evidence but an incidental issue wholly dependent upon those three specific features has been taken up for consideration and an order of injunction granted. This is where the Commission is in error. The vindication of public right or public injury as contended by Mr. Salve does not, however, make a dent in the contextual facts, since the case with which a party comes to court ought to be considered in all fairness, in its proper perspective but unfortunately there is a total lack of the same in the instant matter”. In pursuance of the above decision, it is made clear that the plaintiff has not shown any reason, if injunction is not granted to her in what way her right will be affected. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the appellate court as well as trial court. However, the trial court shall dispose of the original suit as expeditiously as possible subject to other part heard and old cases. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J February 26, 2010. YVL [1] (1999) 7 S.C.C.1