IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5764 of 2010 Between: Kanchiraju Shankar Rao & 3 others .. Petitioners AND Koppolu Yashodamma & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5764 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree in C.M.A.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalguda, dated 10.11.2010, by which the order passed in I.A.No.1581 of 2006 in O.S.No.563 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalguda, dated 07.07.2007, granting a temporary injunction in favour of the revision petitioners against respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule land was set aside. 2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of Ac. 5.02 ½ guntas of wet and dry land in S.No.213/ 2 of Rajannagudem Village claiming that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the land on succeeding to their mother Kanchiraju Seetharavamma who died intestate on 16.07.2006. The mother was stated to have executed a Will Deed on 02.11.1997 and Kanchiraju Seetharavamma got the property from her father Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao before 1955 under a Danapatram. The entries in the pahanies and payment of tax, etc., were in accordance with the same and Kanchiraju Seetharavamma filed O.S.No.811 of 1989 against the sons of the second respondent for a perpetual injunction against interference with the suit land. An injunction was made absolute in her favour in the suit and the suit was decreed on 02.04.1991. Still the defendants started claiming rights and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs compelling them to file the suit and the petition for interim injunction. 4. The defendants resisted the request for an interim injunction claiming that they were unaware about the Will, dated 02.11.1997, said to have been executed by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and they claimed to be in possession since four decades. The defendants claimed ignorance about O.S.No.811 of 1989 also and contended that the plaintiffs were trying to dispossess them from the suit land. The second defendant was stated to be the second wife of Koppolu Venkateshwar Rao and the grand father of the first defendant/father of Koppolu Venkateshwar Rao executed a registered Will bequeathing Ac. 5.02 ½ guntas to the first defendant in S.No.213, the nominal patta for which was in the name of Kanchiraju Seetharavamma. O.S.No.134 of 1976 for a permanent injunction and I.A.No.342 of 1976 therein for a temporary injunction were filed by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma against the defendants and the petition for interim injunction and C.M.A.No.6 of 1977 against the same failed on merits. In fact Kanchiraju Seetharavamma executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 21.03.1980 admitting the execution of a registered Will by the grand father of the first defendant, etc., and a Panchanama was conducted on 29.12.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Panchayat Secretary, Rajannagudem, regarding the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant. Hence, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the petition. 5. During the enquiry, the trial Court marked Exs.P-1 to P-46 and R-1 to R-14 and in its order, dated 07.07.2007, it observed that the original ownership of the property with Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao and Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and Koppolu Venkateshwar Rao being the daughter and son of Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao are admitted. The second defendant being the second wife of Koppolu Venkateshwar Rao and the first defendant being their daughter are also admitted. The plaintiffs are the children of Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and the trial Court observed that the counter affidavit of the first defendant was silent about the remaining Ac. 5.08 guntas in the possession of Rangamma, step sister of the first defendant and the trial Court also referred to the transactions of sales by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and opined that Kanchiraju Seetharavamma appeared to be the absolute owner in S.No.213 on being bequeathed the land by Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao under a Danapatram, though the Danapatram was not before the Court. The trial Court noted that O.S.No.134 of 1976 was ultimately dismissed for default whereas O.S.No.811 of 1989 filed by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma against the second defendant in respect of the suit land was decreed on 02.04.1991. Consequently, the trial Court doubted the genuineness of Ex.R-5-Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.03.1980, and relied on Exs.P-4 to P-24-Land Revenue Receipts and Exs.P-25 to P-43-Pahanies, as opposed to Exs.R-9 and R-10-Land Revenue Receipts, which were before the suit. Ex.P-46/Ex.R-14- Proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, dated 20.01.2007, were not relied on as the trial Court felt that during the pendency of the suit, there was no necessity of any revenue enquiry concerning possession. Consequently, the trial Court referred to the version of the plaintiffs about the execution of Ex.P- 2-Will by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma on 02.11.1997 before her death on 16.07.2006 as certified in Ex.P-1-Death Certificate of Kanchiraju Seetharavamma, dated 22.12.2006. It also considered that even in the absence of such a Will, the plaintiffs succeeded to Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and with reference to the third party affidavits filed by both the parties, the trial Court found that two persons gave their affidavits to both the parties and when they were summoned to appear before the Court, they supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court further found that it is the duty of the Court to protect the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs who made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and granted an interim injunction on merits. 6. In C.M.A.No.2 of 2007 against the said order, the first Appellate Court had again referred to the rival contentions and documents and it came to the conclusion that the probabilities arising out of the documents rather than the conflicting third party affidavits should form the basis of any consideration. The first Appellate Court also observed that proceedings were pending before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, since prior to the suit with the defendants seeking transfer of patta for which the plaintiffs were objecting. It also noted that when the defendants filed the claim petition and the plaintiffs objected to the same before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, Kanchiraju Seetharavamma was still alive and Ex.R-14/Ex.P-46-Proceedings by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, dated 20.01.2007, about the first defendant cultivating the suit land and raising dry crops in 2006-2007 was on consideration of the rival documents and a Panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector on 29.12.2006. The Panchanama recorded by the competent revenue authorities after enquiry prior to the suit about the cultivation of the land before the first defendant could not have been ignored and the first Appellate Court also felt that the Memorandum of Understanding-Ex.R-5, dated 21.03.1980, under which the mother of the plaintiffs acted on the registered Will Deed executed by her father on 12.08.1963 and also acknowledged it was ignored by the trial Court for no reason. When there is a cloud over the possession of the plaintiffs, no equitable relief of injunction would have been granted, more so, when in O.S.No.134 of 1976, the mother of the plaintiffs failed in getting an interim injunction in C.M.A.No.6 of 1977. Ex.R-5-Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.03.1980, was noted to be subsequent to the dismissal of O.S.No.134 of 1976 for default and it was also noted that the decree in O.S.No.811 of 1989 was an ex parte decree. In view of the earlier litigation, the first Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession as on the date of the suit and are hence, not entitled to an injunction. Accordingly, allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the first Appellate Court directed the main suit to be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of its order. 7. The plaintiffs challenged the said order in this revision reiterating their contentions and referring to mutation of the name of Kanchiraju Seetharavamma in the revenue records, the entry in Khasra Pahani showing her as a Pattadar, the proceedings in O.S.No.811 of 1989, the sales by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma under Exs.P-44 and P-45-Sale Deeds, dated 21.05.1980 and 09.08.2004, subsequent to Ex.R-5-Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.03.1980, and the Pahani for the year 2006-07 in Ex.P-43 which could not have been ignored. The consistent entries in the Pahanies-Exs.P-25 to P-43 ought to have been preferred than Exs.R-10 to R-14 after the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs desired the appeal order to be reversed and the interim injunction in their favour to be restored. 8. Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri P. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are supported by the material on record about their entitlement to an interlocutory equitable relief of injunction pending the suit. 10. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the original ownership of the property with Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao is also not in dispute. Ex.R-1-Certified copy of the registered Will Deed executed by Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao on 12.08.1963 could not have been suspected as motivated or fabricated at that distance of time apart from the original Will being more than 30 years by the time of the present litigation. The registered Will made no reference to any Danapatram by Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao and in fact, he stated positively in Ex.R-1 that he did not execute any document relating to his properties earlier. Though in Ex.P-2, Kanchiraju Seetharavamma, mother of the plaintiffs, claimed the agricultural land in Rajannagudem to be a property in her absolute possession and enjoyment, the unregistered Will made no reference to any Danapatram under which Kanchiraju Seetharavamma was given the property by Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao. Apart from Ex.P-2, in identifying or specifying the properties bequeathed, Ex.R-3-Certified copy of the order in I.A.No.342 of 1976 in O.S.No.134 of 1976 and Ex.R-4- Certified copy of the order in C.M.A.No.6 of 1977 between Kanchiraju Seetharavamma and the defendants herein show that the original of Ex.R-1 was relied on by the defendants and the trial Court and the first Appellate Court accepted the version of the defendants rather than the copy of the Pahani relied on by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma. The conflicting entries in the Pahanies were also noted in the said orders and the defendants were found to be prima facie dependable in the dispute about the same land. 11. The decree in O.S.No.811 of 1989, dated 02.04.1991, shows that Kanchiraju Seetharavamma filed the suit against two sons of Koppolu Venkateshwar Rao concerning Ac. 5.00 guntas in S.No.213 of Venigandla Village which suit was decreed ex parte. Even if it concerned the suit schedule land, as an injunction does not run with the land, the same can have no adverse impact on the claims of the defendants herein who were not parties to that suit. Exs.P-4 to P-24-Land Revenue Receipts and Exs.P-25 to P-43- Pahani Patras, of course, had consistent entries in favour of the plaintiffs as opposed to Exs.R-2 and R-7 to R-10. But even ignoring the documents relied on by the defendants emanating subsequent to the suit, Ex.R-5-Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.03.1980, said to have been executed by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma had its contents recognizing the execution of the original of Ex.R-1 by Koppolu Laxminarayana Rao and further statements by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma in tune with the claims of the defendants in the present dispute. It is true that Exs.P-44 and P-45-registered Sale Deeds were executed by Kanchiraju Seetharavamma subsequent to Ex.R-5, but any deeper probe into the circumstances under which the documents had arisen is not appropriate at the stage of interlocutory adjudication. Ex.R-6-Panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector in the presence of independent Mediators on 27.12.2006 prior to the suit was about the first defendant having cultivated the land in question. While the third party affidavits in favour of both the parties erase their credibility mutually, Ex.R-14/Ex.P-46-Proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, dated 20.01.2007, within one month from the filing of the suit show that both the parties were before the revenue authorities asserting their conflicting claims since long prior to the suit with the plaintiffs filing an objection petition even by 03.04.2006 before the Mandal Revenue Officer. Ex.R-14/Ex.P-46 enumerates the rival contentions and the contents of the statements recorded, the verification of records and the conclusions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor. It says that the first defendant cultivated the disputed land and raised dry crops in the year 2006-07 as per Ex.R-7-Revenue Pass Book and the Mandal Revenue Officer, therefore, advised the parties to approach the Civil Court. The effect of Ex.P-46/Ex.R-14 cannot be totally wished away as observed by the first Appellate Court and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances discussed above is not in favour of assuming any strong prima facie case of possession of the suit property with the plaintiffs by the date of the suit. In the restricted revisional jurisdiction, the conclusions of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court, hence, do not appear susceptible to any interference. 12. The absence of such interference, however, is not to be mistaken as expression of any opinion in favour of the credibility and acceptability of the version of either party which has to be still probed into on the balance of broad human probabilities on the evidence to be placed on record by both the parties to the suit in the suit. The suit land is admittedly an agricultural land and pending determination of the suit, both the parties should not in any way alter the nature of the property in any manner and should not indulge in alienating or encumbering any interest in the property. The first Appellate Court already directed in the impugned order the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of its order and the same should take care of any irretrievable prejudice being caused to the rights and interests of either party in the meanwhile. 13. In the result, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in all respects regarding the nature of the property and not to alienate or encumber the property in any manner till the final determination of the suit on merits and the trial Court is directed to adhere to the time limit fixed by the first Appellate Court in the impugned order for determination and disposal of the suit on merits. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5764 of 2010 Date: 18th February, 2011 KL