IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1006 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Nawaz Hussain ..... Appellant AND Mohd. Afzaluddin Ahmed and others. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1006 of 2009 JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 26.08.2009 in I.A.No.4887 of 2008 in O.S. No.699 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said application. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed in the interlocutory application, the order of which is impugned in this appeal. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.699 of 2008 for perpetual injunction and also filed I.A. No.4887 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to grant temporary injunction in his favour restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. During the course of enquiry, Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.B-1 to B-23 were marked on behalf of respondents. After hearing both sides and after considering the material placed before the Court, the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred the present appeal. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B.Madhava Reddy the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the schedule lands formed part of the estate of family of Nizams of Hyderabad and from their successors, the petitioner purchased the schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.2006. After the purchase, the petitioner put up a pucca structure and providing amenities like electricity etc., and assessed as house No.18-8-221/10/1 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner created fictitious documents to occupy the property bearing No.18-8-221/9 admeasuring 533 Sq. yards by creating a false number as 18-8-221/10/1. The 1st respondent purchased the said property from one Rahmati Begum vide registered sale deed document No.1619/1984, dated 27.04.1984, which is nothing but the suit property falsely claimed by the petitioner. Later the 1st respondent sold away an extent of 400 Sq. yards to the 2nd respondent by virtue of registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008 and also sold away the remaining 133 sq. yards to the 3rd respondent. Hence, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are absolute owners of the property bearing No.18-8-221/9. Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that the petitioner is trying to confuse the Court that there are two separate properties i.e., one is under Number 18- 8-221/9 and another is 18-8-221/10/1, but actually there is no property bearing number as 18-8-221/10/1 and hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. As far as proof of documents is concerned, the petitioner filed copy of the sale deed executed in his favour and also filed encumbrance certificate to show his title. But the petitioner cannot show the flow of title and also did not produce any link documents in respect of the schedule property. Coming to the possession of the property, according to the petitioner, he is in possession of the said property bearing No.18-8- 221/10/1 with specific boundaries. According to the respondents, they are in possession of the said property bearing No.18-8-221/9. But, both the parties are showing the similar boundaries. In fact the southern boundary is shown as property bearing No.18-8-221/10 to both the alleged properties. In this regard, there cannot be two such properties within the same boundaries and they are not two separate and distinct properties. But, the Advocate-Commissioner in his report never mentioned about the property bearing No.18-8- 221/10/1. When there is dispute with regard to the survey number or house number of the property, it is the boundaries that would prevail. In the instant case, the petitioner claims the number as 18- 8-221/10/1, whereas the respondents claim the number as 18-8- 221/9. The respondents are showing their boundaries in Ex.B-1 to B-3 sale deeds and are tallying with the property bearing number as 18-8-221/9. On the other hand, the petitioner is not able to establish that there is property bearing No.18-8-221/10/1 and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Unless and until the petitioner establishes his possession over the petition schedule property, the petitioner cannot be entitled for temporary injunction. Under these circumstances, we feel that the petitioner has no prima facie case and possession over the petition schedule property. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is needless to say that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court or by the lower Court while passing the impugned order. The trial Court shall dispose of the case within four(4) months. No order as to costs. ___________ V.V.S.RAO, J _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J OCTOBER 21, 2009 KSH Note: Despatch by 23.10.2009. (b/o) KSH