IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3157 of 2011 Between: Balapeeru and another .. Petitioners AND K. Saibaba and another .. Respondents ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order in C.M.A. No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 29-03-2011, by which the order and decree in I.A. No.1282 of 2010 in O.S. No.88 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy, dated 20-12-2010 were confirmed. The factual background is that the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property of Ac.0.04 guntas in survey No.56 of Nagavaram village claiming plaintiffs 1 and 2 to be the owners and possessors of the ancestral property inherited from the original pattedar Ashamma, the grand mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants to have occupied the suit land without any right, title or interest and to have started construction over the suit land. The plaintiffs also filed I.A. No.1282 of 2010 along with the suit for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with any further construction in the suit property. The said application was resisted by the defendants who contended that they gave a suitable reply to the suit notice and the 1st defendant purchased the plot from the original owners under registered sale deeds, dated 11-03-2010 and the construction of the house was almost completed. The trial Court after marking Exs.P.1 to P.6 and R.1 to R.10 during the enquiry, passed an order on merits on 20-12-2010 dismissing the petition, as possession and enjoyment of the defendants over the suit land and the constructions made by them are probablised and proved and the very suit notice falsified the claim of the defendants occupying the suit land on 03-11-2010. The registered sale deeds and the link documents filed by the defendants probablised their contentions as against the documents for the plaintiffs Exs.P.1 to P.4, in which the names of the plaintiffs were not found. The civil miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiffs against the said order resulted in the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the appellate Court also found that prima facie the plaintiffs failed to establish the source of their alleged title or the balance of convenience in their favour. The defendants having purchased under registered sale deeds, will be comparatively inconvenienced than the plaintiffs who in the event of their success can have the constructions made by the defendants removed from the suit property. The appellate Court also felt that the constructions, if any, in the suit property can be made subject to the result of the suit without any right to the defendants to plead any equities later and hence, the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. The plaintiffs again seek to raise the same questions of fact in this revision and Sri P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard before admission. The contention of the plaintiffs that the Courts below did not appreciate the documentary evidence on record appropriately and reasonably, does not appear to stand to reason, as the registered sale deeds and the link documents filed by the defendants could not have been ignored by the Courts below as against Exs.P.1 to P.4, which were noted by the trial Court to be not referring to the plaintiffs in any manner. The decree in the earlier suit O.S. No.21 of 2006 or the reference to any ancestors of the plaintiffs in Exs.P.1 to P.4 Records of Rights and pahanies could not have been preferred against Exs.R.1 to R.8, the vendors of the defendants laying their claims under the registered sale deeds since 1992. When the possession and enjoyment of the property by the date of the suit is admitted even by the plaintiffs to be with the defendants, the defendants could not have been deprived of the enjoyment of the property claimed under lawful title during the pendency of the suit on any prima facie considerations in the absence of any strong material for the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court rightly relied on a binding precedent from the Apex Court squarely applicable to the situations like the present one and it will be suffice to make it clear that any construction, which the defendants may make in the suit property, should have to ultimately be subject to the result of the suit without any right to the defendants to claim any equities on the ground of such constructions. The restricted revisional jurisdiction cannot, therefore, be exercised in favour of the revision petitioners. Sri Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested that the trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial of the suit and even in the absence of any positive direction, the trial Court can be believed to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-09-2011 Svv