IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1547 of 2011 Between: Penumatsas Udaya Bhaskara Raju … Petitioner And: Smt. Gummadidala Aruna …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1547 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 18.03.2011 in CMA No.67 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein for declaration, was allowed setting aside the order dated 18.11.2010 in IA No.233 of 2010 in OS No.129 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property of 311 sq. yards situated in Plot No.67 of Mathrusri House Building Co-operative Society, Kurmannapalem village, Gajuwaka Municipal limits, Visakapatnam. According to the respondent, she purchased the schedule property from Mathrusri Cooperative House Building Society under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.1983 for valid consideration of Rs.9,330/- and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. She alleges that in the year 2006, the society made efforts to interfere with her possession and enjoyment, she filed ARC No.6 of 2006 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society. She alleges that the petitioner herein/defendant in collusion with the society has been trying to dispossess her from the schedule property and that she gave a complaint to the police, but there was no action, she filed suit for injunction. Along with the suit, she filed IA No.233 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The petitioner herein-defendant filed counter opposing the application and contending that the society has cancelled the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and sold the suit property to the petitioner-defendant on 22.02.2003 for Rs.9,330/- and ever since the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he mortgaged the property with Andhra Bank and constructed a small building, which was assigned municipal D.No.31-47-51/3. 4. During enquiry, Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.18 were marked on behalf of the defendant. The learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 18.11.2010 dismissed the application holding that there is no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff to grant temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in CMA No.63 of 2010. The learned Additional District Judge, by impugned order dated 18.03.2011 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court and consequently allowed IA No.233 of 2010 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Assailing the said order, the defendant filed the present revision. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue as to the validity or otherwise of the cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the society is a matter to be considered on evidence during the course of trial and the learned Additional District Judge erred in dwelling deep into the said aspect and holding that cancellation of the sale deed is not valid under law and Ex.P.1 sale deed is still in force and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would further submit that the trial Court has totally ignored the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit site ever since his purchase in the year 2003 and that he has constructed a house by taking loan from the bank on mortgage of the suit property and the house is also assessed to the property tax, which he has been paid and therefore, the evidence on record establishes that the petitioner-defendant has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. It is not disputed that the suit plot was originally sold by the society in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed Ex.P.1 dated 05.09.1983. According to the defendant, the said sale deed was cancelled by the society subsequently under Ex.R.6 dated 22.02.2003, as the plaintiff committed default in payment of the sale consideration and thereafter, the petitioner/defendant purchased the said plot from the society under sale deed dated Ex.R.5 dated 22.02.2003.It is not disputed that the plaintiff filed ARC No.6 of 2006 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies seeking permanent injunction against the society and the same was dismissed and thereafter the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal. The plaintiff questioned the validity of the cancellation of the sale deed by the society. The learned Additional District Judge dealt with the said aspect at length and held that Ex.R.6 cancellation deed is not valid under law and Ex.R.5 sale deed which was subsequently executed is also not valid and Ex.P.1 sale deed still continues to be in existence and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit plot in the year 1983 for consideration of Rs.9,330/-, whereas the defendant claims to have purchased the same in the year 2003 under Ex.R.5. Though the market value of the property is shown as Rs.1,94,000/- , it was sold to the respondent only for Rs.9,330/-. The huge disparity between the market value and sale consideration is inexplicable. It is not known how the plot of 311 sq. yards was purchased by the petitioner/defendant in the year 2003 for such a grossly low value of Rs.9330/- when the same plot was sold to the plaintiff in the year 1983 for the same amount, though the market value of the property is shown as Rs.1,94,000/-. The truth and the validity or otherwise of the cancellation deed Ex.R.6 and the genuineness or otherwise of the transaction contained in Ex.R.5 sale deed are matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. Both parties filed documents in support of their respective claims of possession over the suit property. 7. The plaintiff filed Exs.P.7 and P.9 tax receipts for the years 2008 and electricity bill Ex.P.12 and receipt Ex.13 for the year 2009-10. The defendant filed tax receipts and electricity bills for the years 2008-09 and 2010. The trial court refused to grant injunction observing that the defendant filed approved plan for construction of the house and also document showing mortgage of the property with Andhra Bank and house tax receipts showing payment of tax from the year 2004 and therefore, solitary tax receipt filed by the plaintiff for the year 2008-09 does not come to her rescue. On reappraisal of the same evidence, the appellate court held that there is prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate court mainly appears to have based its conclusion on the finding that the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.R.6 is not valid and Ex.P.1 sale deed continued to be in force. The appellate court also observed that there is controversy regarding the identity of the disputed property, which has to be resolved during the course of trial. The appellate court found that the possession of the plaintiff is to be protected as she is the absolute owner of the suit property till the real controversy is resolved in the main suit. In the impugned orders, the courts below do not however record any clear cut finding as to who among the parties is in possession and enjoyment of the property. As the suit is for mere injunction and the same aspects which have been canvassed in the present proceedings do arise for consideration in greater detail in the course of trial, it is considered neither prudent nor desirable to go into the merits of the case at this stage in the present proceedings to find as to who among the parties is in possession of the suit property. 8. In the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the dispute involved, it is considered that a direction be issued to the trial court to dispose of the suit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and till such time, status-quo obtaining as on today in respect of the suit property shall be maintained by both parties. The trial court shall dispose of the suit on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned orders of the courts below and also any of the observations made herein above. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss