HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1645 of 2011 Date:27.08.2011 Between: Shetty Pullaiah ..... Petitioner AND Shetty Srinivasa Rao .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Narasimha Chary Counsel for Respondent : Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 25.02.2010, in C.M.A.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby he has confirmed order, dated 08.07.2010, in I.A.No.130 of 2010 in O.S.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kodad. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction on the plea that his father has purchased the suit schedule property from the petitioner under an agreement of sale in the year 2001 and that, till the death of his father, he was in possession and thereafter, being his elder son, the respondent is in possession of the property. In support of his plea of possession, the respondent filed Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-6 which are the pahanies for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively. The respondent also relied upon Ex.P-5-a notice issued by the Agricultural Co- Operative Society to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property and that, he has not executed the purported agreement of sale in favour of the father of the respondent. He asserted that he continues to be the owner of the suit schedule property and therefore, no injunction can be issued against the lawful owner. The trial Court has placed reliance on Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-6-pahanies in order to hold that the respondent has proved his possession over the suit schedule property and accordingly, he has established the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury for grant of injunction. The lower appellate Court confirmed the said order. Sri K.Narasimha Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent failed to file the purported agreement of sale said to have been executed by his client in favour of his father and that both the Courts below have committed a grievous error in not examining the prima facie title of the respondent before granting the temporary injunction. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the purported agreement of sale is true, that does not convey any title on the respondent and that, Ex.P-5-a notice issued by the Agricultural Co-Operative Society to the petitioner, which was filed by the respondent himself, would show that the property which was under mortgage to the society was sold and that, such a sale cannot be recognized in law. Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, sought to support the orders of the Courts below by placing heavy reliance on the pahanies. He submitted that as the respondent established his prima facie possession, he is entitled for grant of injunction. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the record. It is trite that injunction is an equitable relief and purely discretionary and for grant of such a relief, the plaintiff is required to establish his prima facie title apart from his prima facie possession. Even accepting the respondent’s own case, this Court is of the opinion that he failed to establish his prima facie title. The respondent is placing reliance on a purported agreement of sale of the year 2001, which was not even filed all through the proceedings, right from the stage of the trial Court. Even though Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-6-pahanies show the name of the respondent in the possession column, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is continued to be shown as the pattadar. Therefore, prima facie, the respondent might have established his possession but the petitioner is shown to be the pattadar, who is the true owner of the suit schedule property. The law is well settled that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. (See Premji Ratansey Shah V. Union of India[1]). Even Ex.P-5-a notice issued by the Agricultural Co-Operative Society shows that the property was evidently sold by the petitioner in favour of the father of the respondent when mortgage of the said property was subsisting. While this Court need not go into the question whether the so-called agreement of sale is valid or not, prima facie, even if such an agreement of sale is in existence, the same appears to have been executed in respect of the property which was already mortgaged. Unfortunately, both the Courts below have lost sight of one of the essential requirements for grant of injunction namely prima facie title of the plaintiff. Unless the Courts consider the prima facie title, the discretionary relief of injunction cannot be granted, lest every encroacher may go to the Court and try to take its aid to protect his unlawful possession. For the above-mentioned reasons, even though the respondent was able to establish his prima facie possession over the suit schedule property, he failed to establish existence of the other two essential elements for grant of injunction namely prima facie title and balance of convenience. Therefore, both the orders of the Courts below are not sustainable and they are accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2347 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th August, 2011 DR [1] (1994) 5 SCC 547