THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO. AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No. 1184 of 2009. JUDGEMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This appeal is filed against the order dt. 10.9.2009 in I.A.No. 1453 of 2007 in O.S.No. 76 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal whereby the learned I Additional District Judge granted interim injunction restraining the appellants/respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/respondent over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed I.A.No. 1453 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction against the appellants herein seeking to restrain them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner and in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that one G.Ram Reddy sold Ac. 3.13 gts of land in S.No. 326/2 of Jangaon village and Mandal, Warangal District to Smt. Rondla Rukkamma under a registered sale deed dt. 25.7.1985 and that thereafter one Byreddy Rayapu Reddy and six others sold Ac. 3.20 gts in the same survey number to Rondla Rukkamma under a registered sale deed dt. 24.1.1986 and that on the same day Y.Prakash Reddy sold an extent of Ac. 0.33 gts in S.No. 326/2 to the said Rondla Rukkamma under a registered sale deed dt. 24.1.1986 and thus in all she purchased Ac. 7.26 gts. It is further stated that the petitioner purchased two plots i.e. 9948 sq. yards in ‘A’ schedule and 7878 sq. yards in “B’ Schedule under a registered sale deed dt. 5.9.2007 from the said Rukkamma through her Power of Attorney Aitharaju Venkat Ram Narsimha Rao. It is further stated that most of the A’ Schedule property has been sold by the petitioner to Ram Srinu and others in December 2007 under a registered sale deed-cum-GPA and that there is no threat so for as A’ schedule is concerned. It is further stated that the petitioner wanted to develop the suit schedule property and in the 3rd and 4th week of December, 2007 when he was clearing the lands, the respondents tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that he could resist the illegal acts of the respondents and even then, the respondents are proclaiming in the village that they would dispossess him by any means and in the circumstances, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction along with the present petition for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. The respondents filed counter wherein it is stated that the General Power of Attorney in favour of Aitharaju Venkat Narsimha Rao executed by Smt. Rondla Rukkamma shows an extent of Ac. 7.21 gts whereas in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that she is the owner of land of an extent of Ac. 7.26 gts and thus there is discrepancy with regard to the extent of land and that the said GPA does not specify the details of the property by metes and bounds and that when the GPA does not specify the property meticulously, the question of succeeding to the property within the boundaries mentioned by him does not arise and that the boundaries mentioned in the documents referred to by the petitioner are inconsistent and prima facie disprove the version of the petitioner. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent purchased an extent of Ac. 2.14 gts in S.No. 326/2 situated at Jangoan village and Mandal, Warangal District for a consideration from the original pattedars under a registered sale deed dt. 10.9.1981 and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase and her name was shown in the revenue records since 1981-82. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Marri Buchi Reddy vide document dt. 24.5.1990 and since the said Buchi Reddy was acting against the interest of the 3rd respondent, the General Power of Attorney was cancelled on 3.9.2007 and that after cancellation of General Power of Attorney, the 3rd respondent gifted an extent of Ac. 1.00 in favour of the 1st respondent under a registered Gift deed dt. 3.9.2007 and that as there was error in the schedule of property, a rectification deed was executed and registered on 11.10.2007. It is further that the 3rd respondent executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd respondent on 3.9.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner taking advantage that he is having land in the same survey number, is trying to occupy the property held by the 3rd respondent and in the circumstances, it is prayed to dismiss the injunction petition. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter stating that though his affidavit refers an extent of Ac. 7.26 gts of land and the document of General Power of Attorney refers to an extent of Ac. 7.21 gts of land, there is no dispute with regard to the extent of land since the said Rondla Rukkamma executed General Power of Attorney in respect of her entire land and out of such property, he purchased 17829 sq. yards. While accepting the assertion of the respondents that the 3rd respondent purchased an extent of Ac. 2.14 gts of land in S.No. 326/2 of Jangaon village, it is stated that her General Power of Attorney Buchi Reddy sold away the entire property long back in favour of third parties through registered sale deeds and that the petitioner came to know of the said fact when he obtained certified copy of encumbrance certificate pertaining to her land and such sales commenced in June 1990 and ended on 19.3.2004 and thus her entire property was sold away as on 19.3.2004 and that the 3rd respondent cancelled the General Power of Attorney after 17 years without issuing any notice to the GPA and that the cancellation of GPA is only an after thought. It is further stated that the registered documents dt. 3.9.2007 executed in favour of the respondents 1 ands 2 do not confer any title on them since the property described in those documents was sold away to third parties. The trial court after appreciating the contentions of both parties and documentary evidence brought on record, granted interim injunction as prayed for by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the respondents filed the present appeal. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has to stand on his own legs to substantiate his contention in stead of granting injunction basing on the weaknesses of the case of the appellants. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the contention of the appellants that the 3rd appellant purchased an extent of Ac. 2.14 gts in S.No. 326/2 of Jangaon village from the original pattadars and that the predecessor-in-title of the respondent herein also had purchased certain extent of land through registered documents dt. 25.7.1985 and 24.1.1986 in two different bits and that the property purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent herein was intercepted by the property of the appellants herein and the registered documents in favour of the respondent’s predecessor show the appellants property to be one of the boundary of both sides to the property purchased by the respondent’s purchaser. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Judge answered all the contentions raised by the appellants and the reasoning given by the learned Judge while negativing the contentions of the appellants are convincing and therefore the order under appeal does not require interference. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the order under appeal can be sustained. The main contention of the appellants is that the 3rd appellant purchased an extent of Ac. 2.14 gts for a valuable consideration from the original pattadars under a registered sale deed dt. 10.9.1981 and that the name of the 3rd appellant was also shown in revenue records since 1981-82 and that she executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Marri Buchi Reddy and when the said Buchi Reddy was acting against the interest of the 3rd appellant, she cancelled the General Power of Attorney on 3.9.2007 and that on the same day, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 1st respondent for an extent of Ac. 1.00 and that she also executed a registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney for an extent of Ac. 1.00 in favour of the 2nd respondent and that the sale deed of the petitioner also shows the land of the 3rd appellant as one of the boundaries and therefore, it is for the petitioner to explain where the suit land is. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the 3rd appellant executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Marri Buchi Reddy on 24.5.1990 in respect of entire extent of Ac. 2.14 gts and the said Buchi Reddy sold away the entire extent of land to different persons from 1990 to 2004 under different registered sale deeds and that the registered General Power of Attorney was cancelled on 3.9.2007 i.e. 17 years after it was executed that too without issuing any notice to the said Buchi Reddy and since as on 3.9.2007, the entire land of 3rd appellant was already sold, even if the 3rd appellant executes registered documents in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 for an extent of Ac. 1.00 each, the documents do not create confer any title to the appellants 1 and 2. In support of his contention, he relied on Exs:P.14 to P.34 the certified copies of registered sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney of 3rd appellant which show that the entire land of Ac. 2.14 gts belonging to the 3rd appellant was transferred to them. The trial court mainly relying on Exs: 14 to P.34 which are the certified copies of registered sale deeds executed by the General Power of Attorney of the 3rd appellant in respect of land of Ac. 2.14 gts in S.No. 326/2 and observing that there is no answer from the appellants with regard to Exs: P.14 to P.34, held that the 3rd appellant has no land as on 3.9.2007 and therefore the registered gift deed dt. 3.9.2007executed in favour of 1st appellant and the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dt. 3.9.2007 executed in favour of 2nd appellant for an extent of Ac. 1.00 do not confer any title on them. With regard to the contention that the sale deed of the petitioner refers to the land of the 3rd appellant as one of the boundaries, the trial court held that since the land is vacant land and unless some structures are made, it is usually difficult to notice the change of title over the land by the third parties. Further, the trial court held that the 3rd appellant cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Marri Buchi Reddy 17 years after it was executed without issuing any notice to him and since the GPA is not cancelled prior to execution of Exs: P.14 to P.34 by the said Buchi Reddy, the sale deeds executed by him will prevail. The trial court also relied on a decision of this Court in the caseP of Dr.Yadla Ramesh Naidu vs. Sub-Registrar, Visakhapatnam [1] wherein this Court held that no person can pass or transfer a better title in a property than that he possesses therein and that mere registration of the transfer of immovable property by execution of a document does not confer any title or right on the transferee unless the transferor himself or herself has title over the same at the time of the transfer. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decision, the trial Court held that the 3rd appellant has no title as on the date of execution of documents in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 and therefore, the appellants 1 and 2 do not get any title over the property covered by the registered documents dt. 3.9.2007 executed by her in their favour. The trial Court considering all the aspects held that the respondent has prima facie case, balance of convenience to sustain temporary injunction and accordingly granted the same. The reasoning adopted by the trial court while granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent are cogent and convincing and the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality warranting to be interfered with in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.V.S.RAO,J __________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -02-2010. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO. AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No. 1184 of 2009. Dt. –02-2010. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA PRE DELIVERY JUDGEMENT IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 1184 of 2009 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) FOR PERUSAL. [1] 2009 (1) ALD 337