THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5771 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 23.06.2010, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby, order and decree, dated 16.02.2010, in I.A.No.1396 of 2009 in O.S.No.296 of 2009, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, granting interim injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the petition schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit, was confirmed. 2. Heard. 3. The respondents’ herein/plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.296 of 2009 before the trial Court for permanent injunction and made I.A.No.1396 of 2009 therein for interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein/defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents situated at Survey No.269-6, Suguru Village, Hindupur. It is the case of the respondents that father of respondent No.1 purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed, which is marked as Ex.A1, from one Govindappa and since then, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same, and after the death of Govindappa, the respondents have been in the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, but the petitioners, who are strangers to the petition schedule property are trying to disturb the possession of the respondents. 4. On the other hand, petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, filed counter stating that the petition schedule property fell to the share of B.Narayanappa, who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. The said B. Narayanappa sold the petition schedule property to one M. Venkata Reddy and delivered the possession in the year 1970. Thereafter, the said Venkata Reddy sold the property to petitioner No.1 in the year 1979. Petitioner No.1 mortgaged the property to one Govindappa under simple mortgage and after the death of Govindappa, petitioner No.1 redeemed the mortgage by paying the mortgage amount to the sons of Govindappa and so, Govindappa has no right to sell the property. Hence, there are no grounds to grant interim injunction in favour of the respondents herein. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that there is serious dispute with regard to the title of the petition schedule property and that can be looked into during trial, and since the respondents/plaintiffs established their possession over the petition schedule property, the trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents herein, basing on Pattdar Pass Books, Adagal and cist receipts. On appeal, the said order of the trial Court was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the vendor of the respondents have no title to the petition schedule property, because he is only a mortgagee, who cannot sell the property and so, the sale itself is illegal; that prima facie title in favour of the respondents is not made out; that therefore, both the Courts below committed serious illegality in granting injunction. 7. The powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in nature. The main object of supervisory jurisdiction is to see whether the Courts below were acting within the bounds prescribed by the law. Unless the finding is not based upon any material on record or miscarriage of justice is committed or that any manifest error of law is pointed out, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the orders under challenge. 8. Grant or refusal of injunction is governed by three well established principles viz., prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, if the injunction is not granted. The respondents/Plaintiffs claim that they have got title in respect of the petition schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 - sale deed. That aspect of the case has been seriously disputed by the petitioners/defendants contending that the vendor of the respondents has no title or interest to transfer the property because the vendor of the respondents is only a mortgagee, and that the petitioners already redeemed the mortgage amount to the sons of the vendor of the respondents and therefore, they have no prima facie title in pursuance of Ex.A1. The revenue authorities issued Exs.A2 to A5, which are the pattadar pass books and title deeds, in favour of the respondents. So far, the competent authority has not cancelled them. Therefore, prima facie, title of the petition schedule property is in serious dispute, which has to be determined and decided by the trial Court after letting in evidence by both the parties. 9. Coming to the possession, the respondents have filed Ex.A6 – certified copy of Adangal and Ex.A7 - cist receipts, which show about their possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendants have not filed any document to show about their possession over the petition schedule property, except Ex.B8, which is a certified copy of Adangal. Even, this document does not indicate that the petitioners are in possession of the petition schedule property, because the names of the respondents were rounded off and the names of the petitioners were inserted therein. So, the petitioners failed to establish their possession in respect of the petition schedule property. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and the same is rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 16, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5771 OF 2010 Between: Smt. B. Narasamma and another .....PETITIONERS AND N. Adeppa and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5771 OF 2010 December 16, 2010