THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1269 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree dated 11.03.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.102 of 2008 by the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the learned Judge set aside the order dated 31.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2008 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, and restrained the petitioners herein, defendants in the suit, temporarily, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein, plaintiff, over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit . Respondent herein filed O.S.No.4 of 2008 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein, defendants, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.1.00 situated in Sy.No.155/AA of Doolapally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent- plaintiff also filed I.A.No.10 of 2008 seeking interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit. The respondent-plaintiff pleaded in the I.A. that he and one Karunakar jointly purchased the suit schedule property from its original owners namely Smt. Durgam Chandramani, her sons, daughters and grandsons, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.07.2007, and thereafter the said Karunakar executed release deed dated 14.08.2007, releasing his share in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. His vendors have acquired the suit schedule property by way of inheritance and succession from their ancestor late Ramulu, who is the husband of vendor No.1, who, in turn, succeeded the same from his father Durgam Istari. The plaintiff pleaded that, after purchase, he has also constructed compound wall around the suit schedule land and that the defendants, who are no way concerned with the said land, are interfering with his possession of the same. The petitioners herein-defendants resisted the I.A., by filing counter-affidavit. It is their case that they purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 gts. in Sy.No.155 by way of registered sale deed dated 12.01.2000 from one M. Yadaiah Goud and others. After purchase, they constructed compound wall around the land, after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat, and that the plaintiff has no right or title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to A49 and the defendants filed Exs.B1 to B29, in support of their respective cases. The trial Court, having heard the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and that he failed to establish the prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and accordingly dismissed the I.A., by order dated 31.03.2008, and vacated the ad-interim injunction granted earlier in his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.102 of 2008 before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Fast Track Court, Medchal. The appellate Court, by order dated 11.03.2010, set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the C.M.A., granting interim injunction as sought by the plaintiff. Questioning the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the orders of the Courts below and other material made available on record. The plaintiff asserts his ownership over the suit schedule land through Exs.A1 and A2, sale deed and release deed respectively. The trial Court, having examined in detail the said documents, pointed out certain discrepancies in the recitals of those documents as regards the market value of the suit land as also the sale consideration. It also held that the plaintiff, except stating that his vendors have acquired the suit schedule land by way of succession, did not mention anywhere in his pleadings as to when exactly the original owner of the land died and from which date, his vendors namely Chandramani and others have succeeded to the property, and he did not place any material with regard to the Occupancy Rights Certificate or Succession Certificate said to have been issued in favour of his vendors. Therefore, the trial Court found it not appropriate to trace the plaintiff’s possession of the suit schedule property through Exs.A1 and A2, the recitals of which contain discrepancies, in the absence of any material placed to substantiate the ownership of his vendors. Further, so far as the pleading of the plaintiff that he constructed compound wall around the suit land, is concerned, the trial Court observed that the pleadings of the plaintiff do not indicate as to when the compound wall was constructed. However, to prove that he purchased building material for construction of compound wall, the plaintiff filed Exs.A21 to 23- receipts, which would show the transactions to have been taken place in the month of December 2007. But however, it was pointed by the trial Court that in his complaint dated 11.01.2008 addressed to the Hon’ble Minister, Department of Home, Government of A.P., the plaintiff alleged that he constructed the compound wall in the month of July 2007 itself, whereas the receipts filed by him under Exs.A21 to A23 indicate that the building material was purchased in the month of December 2007. The plaintiff also filed various complaints lodged by him before the police as well as the revenue officials, under Exs.A29 to A43. Having examined these documents, the trial Court observed that in Ex.A30, complaint dated 19.01.2008 lodged before the Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, as well as in Ex.A35- complaint dated 21.01.2008, the plaintiff alleged that the Court granted ad-interim injunction in his favour on 16.01.2008, but in fact ad-interim injunction was granted in his favour on 17.01.2008. Further, the documents filed by him, evidencing his lodging various complaints before police as well as revenue officials, as also the photographs filed by him, were found to be subsequent to his filing the present suit and obtaining ad- interim injunction and, therefore, the trial Court opined that they are of no help to prove the plaintiff’s possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing the present suit. The trial Court has also discussed about the other documents filed by the plaintiff such as certified copies of pahanies relating to suit schedule property, etc., and found that they are of no help to prove his case and his possession of the suit schedule land as well. Further, the trial Court has considered the documents got marked by the defendants under Exs.B1 to B3, Occupancy Rights Certificate, title deed and pattadar passbook respectively, and held that the said documents prima facie established the possession of the vendor’s vendor of the defendants, namely Mr. Yadaiah Goud, over the suit schedule land, as on 09.01.1998. The trial Court has also examined in detail the other documents filed by the defendants such as sale deeds, under which they claimed to have purchased the suit land and other lands, photographs of the suit schedule land, complaints lodged by them before police alleging interference with their possession of the suit schedule land by the plaintiff, receipts for the amounts spent by them in the months of August, September and October 2007, for construction of compound wall, and other relevant documents, among which Ex.B8, receipt dated 16.11.2006 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Doolapally, shows that the defendants paid requisite fee for construction of compound wall and Ex.B10, panchanama dated 18.09.2007, shows that the revenue authorities have surveyed the lands in Sy.Nos.154 and 155 and fixed boundary stones, pursuant to the application of the 1st defendant. Thus, having considered the respective contentions of the parties with reference to the documents filed by them and having recorded categorical findings as referred above, the trial Court found that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and he failed to make out prima facie case and prove that the balance of convenience is in his favour, and on the other hand the case of the defendants appears to be more probable than that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it dismissed the present I.A. filed by the plaintiff and vacated the ad-interim injunction granted earlier in his favour, against which the plaintiff approached the appellate Court. A perusal of the order of the appellate Court would, however, reveal that the appellate Court has not at all discussed the findings recorded by the trial Court and it simply stated that it has gone through the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The appellate Court did not even refer to the documents filed by the defendants. It is to be noted that the appellate Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is required to appreciate whether the findings arrived at by the Court below are reasonable and judicious, with reference to the evidence adduced by the parties and other material available on record. Unfortunately, no such exercise was made by the appellate Court. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the appellate Court, reversing the order of the trial Court, cannot be sustained and the matter needs to be considered afresh by the appellate Court. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 11.03.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.102 of 2008 by the appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate Court for consideration and disposal afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 13th August, 2010 IBL