THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.622 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the orders in I.A.No.444 of 2005, dated 21-04-2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The appellants are the plaintiffs who filed O.S.No.105 of 2005 seeking decree for specific performance of contract of agreement of sale, dated 11-04-2004 Ex.A1 and for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with possession till they are legally evicted from the suit schedule lands. The appellants/plaintiffs also field I.A.No.444 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and sought for interim injunction to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The appellants purchased the suit schedule land of the respondents/defendants for a sale consideration of Rs.7,11,450/- under an agreement of sale dated 11-04-2004 and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money. The balance was agreed to be paid in the month of November, 2004. Subsequently, some amounts were paid and in total an amount of Rs.3,52,000/- was paid. Pursuant to the agreement, the appellants were put in possession and they raised crop on the said land. Their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Since the respondents did not come forward to execute the sale deed and started interfering with their possession, they filed the suit. The appellants filed I.A.No.444 of 2005 and sought for interim injunction as stated above. The appellants filed documents Exs.A1 to A17 in support of their case. The respondents opposed the petition and filed documents Exs.B1 to B3. No witnesses were examined by both the parties. The Court below primarily relying on Exs.A7 to A10 which are the sale deeds document Nos.4886 of 2005 to 4889 of 2005, dated 26-09-2005, whereby certain lands were sold by the first respondent and his son, held that it was not possible for the Court to come to conclusion regarding possession by either of the parties. The Court below, although adverted to the pahanies Exs.A16 and A17 for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, did not however record prima facie finding as to possession in relation to Exs.A16 and A17. Heard both the learned counsel. The relevant principles as to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury have to be kept in mind for grant of injunctions under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. A perusal of the impugned order does not show that the Court below had observed these principles in the instant case. I have perused Exs.A7 to A10 with the assistance of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It was noticed that these documents relate to sale of lands situated in Sy. Nos.277/ and Sy.No.279. In Sy.No.279 under each document an extent of Acs.0.06 guntas alone has been sold. Therefore, a total extent of Acs.0.24 guntas alone has been sold. However, it appears that the Court below was under the impression that the entire land was sold away. Giving credence to Exs.A16 and A17 which prima facie show that name of the appellants in the enjoyment column prima facie shows their possession in respect of the land. The agreement of sale coupled with Exs.A16 and A17 primarily show that the respondents/defendants intended to sell the suit land to the appellants/plaintiffs. The Exs.A16 and A17 are maintained by the statutory authorities and they are public documents. As noted above, these documents reflect that the appellants/plaintiffs have been inducted into possession. The respondents/defendants did not in fact dispute the existence of Exs.A16 and A17 in this appeal. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellants/plaintiffs have been shown prima facie case in their favour and if the injunction is not granted, they would suffer irreparable injury. In fact both the learned counsel after making submissions to some extent, consented that injunction could be granted except in respect of the lands covered by Exs.A7 to A10. Therefore, having regard to all the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for injunction in respect of the suit lands except in respect of the lands covered by Exs.A7 to A10. The C.M.A. is accordingly partly allowed. No costs. The suit has been filed in the year 2005 and there appears to be some unrest between the parties leading to Police complaints. In view of the same, I direct that the suit shall be disposed of as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th February, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.622 of 2007 Date : 26-02-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.622 of 2007 Date : 26-02-2010 Between : Ramanavami Singh Chandel and another .. Appellants And Seti Janardhan and another .. Respondents