THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3627 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.183 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of open plot of land admeasuring 280 sq. yds., in S.No.1317/A situated at Vavilalapalli Village, Karimnaqar District. She has also filed I.A.No.1306 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for grant of temporary injunction. She pleaded that the property was purchased through a sale deed dated 5.06.2007 from the legal representative of the original owner by name Preetam Sagar. It was pleaded that permission was also obtained from the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation for construction. In proof of possession through her predecessor in title, the petitioner has also filed pahanies for the years 1999-2000 to 2004-2005. She also obtained encumbrance certificate before the property was purchased. The certified copies of the pahanies for certain other years were also filed. Respondents 2 to 4 are the children of the first respondent. It was pleaded that late Mallaiah, the husband of the first respondent, and father of respondents 2 to 4 purchased the land under unregistered document of the year 1953 and ever since the same, they are in possession of the land in question. When some discrepancies were noticed in the revenue records, proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and vide order dated 27.08.2007 the Revenue Divisional officer directed rectification of entries in the revenue records. Through its order, dated 18.09.2007 the trial Court granted temporary injunction. The respondents filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2008 before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The appeal was allowed on 1.04.2008. Hence this C.R.P. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The first respondent is said to have since died. Before the trial Court, the petitioner filed Exs.A.1 to A.13 and the respondents filed Exs.B.1 to B.5. Important among the documents filed by the petitioner are sale deed under Ex.A.1, and pahanies covering the period from 1999-2005 being Exs.A.3 to A.9, A.12 and A.13. It is shown that Preetham Sagar was the pattedar of the land and that he was in possession thereof. A Will is said to have been executed by Preetham Sagar in favour of the vendors of the petitioner. The respondents on the other hand, filed the pahanies for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 i.e., Exs.B.1 and B.2. Another important document relied upon by the respondents is Ex.B.4-the proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, which are subsequent to the filing of the suit. The petitioner prima facie, satisfied the trial Court as regards the mode of acquisition and possession over the property. So far as the respondents are concerned, there is some uncertainty as to the manner in which they acquired the property. They based their claim upon the alleged continuous possession over the land. However no material was placed to prove long possession. Even in Exs.B.1 and B.2, they were not shown as holding any title. The name of the first respondent was shown as the possessor along with many others. Ex.B.4 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer after the suit was filed. It is not referable to any statutory exercise. A serious doubt exists as to whether it was competent for the Revenue officials to certify the possession over the premises on which a house and compound wall are said to have been constructed. That however, it is a different aspect. The lower appellate Court was mainly impressed by the observations made by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.B.4. Assuming that Ex.B.4 is referable to the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971, it needs to be observed that Section 8 thereof makes such proceedings subject to a suit as and when it is filed. On the basis of the stray entries for one or two years, the respondents cannot claim absolute right over the property. There was no justification on the part of the lower appellate Court in reversing the order of temporary injunction. The interest of the parties can be protected by directing the petitioner not to make any construction, till the disposal of the suit. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1306 of 2007 shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit, subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner shall not make any construction during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 15th October, 2009 Js.