IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5135 OF 2010 Between:- Akula Laxman …Petitioner A n d Mangali Narayana and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5135 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-10-2010 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the IX-Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed and the order dated 30-06-2010 in I.A.No.28 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2010, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, was set aside. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.28 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site of 4818.33 sq. yards in Sy.No.1043/A situate in Gandhari village. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the suit property is ancestral property having belonged to the joint family of his father and his brothers and his father’s elder brother Akuka Balaiah, who was the kartha of joint family had no issues and, therefore, the plaintiff and his brother Akula Narayana became entitled for the suit property as the legal heirs. It is stated that the plaintiff’s father pre- deceased his brother Balaiah and Balaiah also died eight years back and his wife Ramavva died two years back. Subsequently, the petitioner and his brother applied for mutation of the suit property in their names in the revenue records. The Tahasildar, after conducting enquiry, ordered mutation, by proceedings dated 15-10-2009 and pattedar passbook was also issued. It is further stated that subsequent to mutation, the plaintiff sold 248.625 sq. yards to Padala Ramulu under a registered sale deed dated 19-04-2010 and the remaining extent of 629 sq. yards continued to be in possession of the plaintiff. Subsequently, a road was laid passing through the plaintiff’s land and as such the plaintiff is now in possession of around 418.33 sq. yards. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants without any manner of right, title or interest tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He, therefore, filed a suit for injunction. 4. The defendants filed a counter in I.A.No.28 of 2010 contending that Akula Balaiah, who was the original owner converted the land into house site plots and sold one such plot measuring 19 yards x 14 yards in favour of defendants’ father on 27-01-1985 for a consideration of Rs.6,500/- under an unregistered simple sale deed and that after their father’s death, the defendants, as legal heirs, succeeded to the said plot and used the same as a court yard for their residential house. The defendants also contend that the Tahasildar, Gandhari certified their possession by issuing a possession certificate on 18-05- 2010. 5. The trial Court, by order dated 30-06-2010, allowed the said petition and confirmed the ex parte interim injunction granted on 01-06-2010, holding that the pahani patrikas clearly showed that plaintiff’s senior paternal uncle viz., Akula Balaiah was in possession and as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 and the learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the said appeal and set aside the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present civil revision petition by the plaintiff. 6. It is not disputed that the plaint schedule property and some other property belonged to plaintiff’s senior paternal uncle Akula Balaiah. The pahanies for the years 1982-83, 1988-90, 1995-96 and 1998-99 filed by the plaintiff showed that Akula Balaiah was in possession and enjoyment and the pahani for the year 2009-2010 showed that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. The defendants claim that their father purchased a portion of the site measuring 19 yards x 14 yards out of the suit property from Akula Balaiah under an unregistered simple sale deed dated 27-01-1985. The plaintiff disputes the said transaction. The truth or otherwise thereof and the validity or otherwise of the said document, which is unregistered, is a matter to be considered during the trial of the suit. In support of his claim, the plaintiff filed the mutation certificate dated 15- 10-2009 issued by Tahasildar, Gandhari showing mutation of the land from the name of Akula Balaiah in the name of plaintiff and his brother Narayana. Subsequently, the plaintiff sold an extent of 248.625 sq. yards in favour of Padala Ramulu by a registered sale deed dated 19-04- 2010, a copy of which is also filed. Basing on the document filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court held that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate Court, however, reversed the same on the ground that the documents filed by the plaintiff would show that he was in possession of the suit property prior to 2009, whereas the certificate of possession dated 18-05-2010 issued by the Tahasildhar showed defendants possession. The appellate Court further observed that the revenue authorities have issued documents in favour of both parties and, therefore, the matter needs thorough enquiry to ascertain as to who is in actual possession. The appellate Court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property in view of the certificate of possession issued by Tahasildhar. 7. It is to be noted that the defendants claim is only in respect of a portion of the suit land measuring 19 yards x 14 yards out of a total extent of 418.33 sq. yards. The defendants claimed to have purchased the same under an unregistered simple sale deed dated 27-01-1985. The truth or otherwise has to be determined only after evidence is recorded during the course of trial. The only other document filed by the defendants is the certificate of possession said to have been issued by Tahasildhar, Gandhari on 18-05-2010 just before filing of the suit. As rightly observed by the trial Court, though the defendants claimed to be in possession ever since their purchase on 27-01-1985, they have not filed any document showing their possession during the past more than twenty years. Even otherwise, the certificate of possession which pertains to only an extent of 19 yards x 14 yards and which is said to have been purchased by the defendants’ father under an unregistered sale deed dated 27-01-1985 does not, at any rate, disprove the claim of plaintiff of his possession of the rest of the suit land. The certificate of mutation issued by Tahasildhar on 15-10-2009 shows that the entire extent was mutated in the name of the plaintiff and his brother and subsequently the plaintiff sold an extent of 248.625 sq. yards out of the total extent of Ac.0- 7¼ guntas under the registered sale deed dated 19-04-2010 in favour of Padala Ramulu. The trial Court, however, found that the boundaries submitted by both parties are not tallying with each other. 8. Whether or not the defendants’ father purchased any site out of the suit property and whether or not the said purchase under an unregistered simple sale deed is valid and binding and whether or not the defendants are in possession of a portion of the suit site in view of the said purchase and what is the extent of land in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, are all matters to be decided on evidence during the course of trial. 9. Under those circumstances, it is considered a fit case to direct both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on today till the disposal of the suit in respect of the suit land, with a further direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim suspension granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011 Lrkm.