THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.645 OF 2010 DATED: 15-03-2011 Between: Gali Rameswara Reddy. .... PETITIONER And Sadala Prathap Reddy & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2009, in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed setting aside the order, dated 13.02.2008, in I.A.No.696 of 2007 in O.S.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, wherein the said application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for temporary injunction, was allowed, granting temporary injunction. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents. According to the petitioner, his senior paternal uncle-Gali Lingareddy was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and on 01.10.1995 the said Lingareddy bequeathed the property under registered Will in favour of his three daughters and also the petitioner and his brother-Subbareddy, and as per the said Will, item No.8- suit property was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and the Will came into force on the death of the legal representative on 02.01.1987. Petitioner-plaintiff however pleads that mutation was also effected and his name was also entered in the revenue records as pattadar and ever since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He alleges that the respondents- defendants, without any manner of right, attempted to trespass into the suit property and therefore the suit had to be filed for injunction. Defendants filed written statement admitting the ownership of the said Lingareddy, but denying the execution of the Will by him. It is specifically stated by the defendants that the Will is a forged document. According to them, the legal representative executed the document, dated 10.06.1984, in favour of his four daughters, one of them Nagalakshmamma is the wife of the 1st defendant and other Subbalakshmamma is the mother of the 2nd defendant. 4. According to the defendants, Ac.5.00 was given to Nagalakshmamma and Ac.2.50 cents to Subbalakshmamma. It is further pleaded that after coming to know that the plaintiff obtained a pattadar pass book in his favour, the said Subbalakshmamma made a representation to the revenue officials for cancellation of the same and after enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer sent a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, recommending cancellation of the pattadar passbook issued in favour of the plaintiff and also holding that the said Subbalakshmamma was in possession of the land. 5. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.696 of 2007 for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. During enquiry before the trial Court, Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.B1 to B19 were marked on behalf of the defendants. After enquiry, the trial Court by order, dated 13.02.2008, allowed the petition and accordingly temporary injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008 before the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. By impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff. 6. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by interim order, dated 11.03.2010, in C.R.P.M.P.No.918 of 2010, directed maintenance of status quo as on that day until further orders. 7. It is to be seen that the claim of the plaintiff is based on a registered Will, dated 01.10.1995, alleged to have been executed by the said Lingareddy, whereas the defendants would contend that the said Will is a forged document and the suit property and other properties were conveyed by the legal representative in favour of his four daughters under document, dated 10.06.1984. Plaintiff also claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since the Will came into force after the death of the said Lingareddy and that necessary entries were also made in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his name. Defendants would contend that on an application filed by the wife of the 1st defendant, who is one of the daughters of Lingareddy, the Mandal Revenue Officer after conducting enquiry, recommended cancellation of the pattadar passbook. Thus, the questions pertaining to the rival claims of title set up by the parties and the rival claims of possession made by them are matters to be decided on evidence that will be adduced by the parties during the course of trial. It is therefore considered imprudent to go into the merits of the case and discuss the evidence at this stage in the present proceedings as the same aspects fall for consideration before the trial Court during the course of trial. It is considered that the ends of justice would be met by directing both parties to maintain status quo, as ordered by this Court on 11.03.2010 in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is directed to make necessary endeavour to dispose of the suit at an earlier date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011. Tsy