IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDSDAY, THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2370 OF 2011 Between: Reddy Satyanarayana … Petitioner And: Penumsta Perraju … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2370 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2011 in I.A.No.44 of 2011 in O.S.No.77 of 2011, on the file of the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, under Rule 42 (c) of the A.P. Agency Rules, was allowed granting interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein, the defendant, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of schedule land of Ac.6-10 cents in Sy.No.72/aa of Charla village, Khammam District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction. According to him, he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule and of Ac.6-10 cents, having succeeded to the same through his mother Ramayanamma under a Will deed dated 06.10.2002. The suit land originally belonged to his grandmother Nadimpalli Buchirajayamma who bequeathed the same under a Will dated 16.02.1971 in favour of the plaintiff’s mother Ramayanamma. The plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land in his own right ever since the death of his mother. The Tahsildar, Charla issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff and his name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. He alleges that the defendant who is a neighbouring land holder bore grudge against the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not accede to the request of the defendant to lease out the land to him and on 05.06.2011, the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.44 of 2011 seeking temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. 4. By the impugned order, the Court granted interim injunction. The petitioner herein, the defendant, contends that he purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 04.03.1994 executed by the plaintiff and his mother for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,44,000/- and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the plaintiff filed the suit with a mala fide intention. 5. While admitting the revision, this Court, by order dated 01.11.2007, granted interim suspension of the impugned order. 6. It is not disputed that the land originally belonged to the plaintiff’s mother. According to the plaintiff, his mother executed a Will dated 06.10.2002 in his favour and ever since the death of his mother he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as a legatee. It is also not disputed that the revenue records and the pattadar passbook stood in the name of the plaintiff’s mother and later the land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. The petitioner/ defendant claims to have purchased the suit land under a sale deed dated 04.03.1994 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,44,000/- from plaintiff and his mother. The respondent/plaintiff disputes the validity of the transfer on the ground that it is violative of the Land Transfer Regulations (Act 1 of 70) as the suit land is situate in agency area, a scheduled area, and the petitioner/defendant is a non-tribal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if the transfer is invalid being violative of the provisions of Act 1 of 1970, it is for the authorities concerned to take appropriate action in that regard and the plaintiff having sold away the land to the defendant, cannot now seek the relief of injunction against the defendant taking advantage of the fact that his name is entered in the revenue records. In support of his plea of possession, the petitioner/ defendant filed land revenue receipt showing payment of land revenue. Even in the said receipt, the name of plaintiff’s mother Ramayanamma is also mentioned. 7. The truth and validity of the civil transaction contained in the sale deed dated 04-03- 1994 putfoward by the petitioner/defendant cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. The impugned order merely granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and it is open to the petitioner/defendant to file a counter and contest the said application I.A.No.44 of 2011. 8. In the circumstances, as I.A.No.44 of 2011 is pending before the trial Court, it is considered that instead of going into the merits of the case as to who among the parties is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.44 of 2011 at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today, in respect of the suit land, shall be maintained by both parties. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th July, 2011 Lrkm.