THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4501 of 2010 (Dated : 28-03-2011) Between: Chilaka Janakamma W/o late Narsimha Lingala Mandal, Mahabubnagar District …Petitioner A n d Anthinarapu Muthyalamma W/o Venkateshwarlu and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4501 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19.7.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal setting aside the order dated 16.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.174 of 2006 in O.S.No.34 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Achampet and consequently, temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2 The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2006. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.5-00 of land comprising Sy.No.20 situated at Rampur village, Lingala Mandal bounded by East: Rest of Survey No.20, West: V.Musaliah’s land, north: Rest of Survey No.20 and South: Laknaram sivar. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the widow of Narsimha, who is brother-in-law of the 2nd defendant A.Venkateshwarlu. The 1st defendant Anthinarapu Muthyualamma is the wife of 2nd defendant. Defendant No.2 while working as an Engineer acquired agricultural lands at Rampur village, Lingala Mandal in the name of his wife-1st defendant. The husband of the plaintiff was looking after the agriculture on behalf of the defendants. For the services rendered by the husband of the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2, defendant No.1 sold Ac.5-00 gunts after receiving a sum of Rs.4,500/- and executed a registered sale deed dated 3.10.1980 and delivered possession. The husband of the plaintiff has two wives and the plaintiff is one among the two. The plaintiff kept the registered sale deed in respect of Ac.5-00 gts. of land in the house of her parents. The plaint schedule land is being put to cultivation off and on as and when there was sufficient rain. On the application of the plaintiff, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Lingala, issued proceedings for implementation of the registered sale deed after due notice to the 1st defendant. The pattedar passbook came to be issued in favour of the plaintiff by the M.R.O after conducting enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the ROR Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the M.R.O., the 1st defendant filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool, vide file No.K/537/2006. The appeal came to be allowed setting aside the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The plaintiff failed to file either a revision or a suit for declaration as required under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or Section 8 of the ROR Act. Since the genuineness of the registered sale deed cannot be decided in the revenue Court, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and also for injunction. She also filed I.A.No.174 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking for temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 3. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded in the written statement that neither the plaintiff nor her husband cultivated the suit land at any time. The alleged registered sale deed is nominal without any consideration and without delivery of possession. The R.D.O., Nagarkurnool rightly allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The husband of the plaintiff was looking after the cultivation of the land of the defendants at Rampur village of Lingala Mandal as the 2nd defendant was a Government employee for some period. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, seven documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7 and on behalf of the defendants, 20 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-20. 5. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the filing of the suit, by order dated 16.4.2008. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ As per the documents submitted by both sides Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.B-1 to B-20, both are shown as possessors for the suit schedule property. Both are not file any 3rd party affidavits relating to their possession. On perusing the entire case records and the arguments submitted by both sides in the interest of justice both parties are directed to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit. Both parties are directing to maintain status quo ante i.e, as on the date of filing of the suit with regard to the petition schedule lands till the disposal of the suit” 6. The defendants filed C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool assailing the order of status quo granted in I.A.No.1745 of 2006 in O.S.No.34 of 2006. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on reappraisal of the material placed on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and thereby, proceeded to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal setting aside the order of status quo passed in I.A.No.274 of 2006 in O.S.No34 of 2006, by judgment dated 19.7.2010. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ Perusal of all above said records as discussed above is clarified that for the year 2005-06 only the neighbours in Sy.No.20 to the extent of Ac.5.00 is recorded in the pahanies only in the name of petitioner herein and the record in the ROR issued by the MRO also set aside by the RDO as discussed above. Even in the panchanama conducted by the MRO for the year 2006, for some period the suit land was kept fallow the remaining period the respondent No.1 Muthyalamma cultivated the lands groundnut crop and erected with her borewell water. Perusal of entire records except for the year 2005-06 the petitioner has not having any possession or as pattadar for the suit land already discussed above. The ROR proceedings which were passed by MRO was already set aside by the ROD and the copy of the panchanama showing that R1 is in possession over the suit lands as already reported to the RDO. Therefore as on the date of the filing of suit by showing the wrong entries in the possession and pattadar column the petitioner filed the present suit. Therefore, I found there is no prima face case in favour of the petitioner. Hence balance of convenience is not their and causing irreparable loss to the petitioner will not arise if no order is granted. Perusal of sale deed Ex.A1 also the same was executed in the year 1980. The ROR proceedings took place in the year 2006, there is a gap of 26 years from the date of sale deed and till the ROR proceedings issued by the MRO Balmoor under Ex.A3 as stated above. The said Ex.A3 proceedings also set aside by RDO as per orders dated 11-10-2006, Ex.A.5. Therefore patta and also possession over the suit schedule property. Recorded by the concerned MRO in favour of the petitioner for that year is invalid, cannot be looked into As on the date of the suit it can be said that the petitioner is not in possession over the suit schedule lands i.e., 31-10-2006. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief against the respondents as prayed for”. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff. 7. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.10.2010. An order of status quo also came to be granted on the even date. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff. No representation on behalf of the respondents-defendants. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner-plaintiff made out prima facie case by placing on record the registered sale deed executed by 1st respondent-1st defendant and also certified copy of the pahanies for the year 2005- 2006. The appellate Court without considering the documents brought on record in a right perspective, proceeded to vacate the status quo order granted by the trail Court and therefore, the order passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is to be restored. A further submission has been made that the petitioner-plaintiff filed revision before the Joint Collector assailing the order passed by the R.D.O and the same is pending in which case, the order passed by the R.D.O setting aside the order passed by the M.R.O needs no consideration. He would also contend that the lower appellate Court has interfered with the order passed by the trial Court without assigning any valid reasons in which case, the order of the trial Court is to be restored. Learned counsel refers certified copy of the pahani patrika for the year 2005-2006 which has been exhibited as Ex.A-7. 10. Grant or refusal of temporary injunction is covered by three well established principles and they are:- 1) Whether the petitioner has made out prima facie case ; 2) Whether the balance of convenience is in his favour, i.e., whether it would cause great inconvenience to him if injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the opposite party would be put, if temporary injunction is granted; 3) Whether the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury The apex Court in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh[1] held that all the above three conditions are to be satisfied without emphasizing any one among the three. 11. The petitioner-plaintiff marked seven documents on his behalf as Exs.A-1 to A-7 and whereas the respondents-defendants marked 20 documents as Exs.B-1 to B-20 on their behalf. Ex.A-7 is the pahani patrika for the year 2005-2006. Ex.B-15 also is pahani patrika in respect of the same year. Two authorities have given pahani patrika for the same year. The entries in the two pahanies are not same. The entries in Ex.A-7 are in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and whereas the entries in Ex.B-15 are in favour of respondent-defendants. But the respondents-defendants placed on record the pahani patrikas right from the year 1980-81 to 2006-07. The 1st respondent-1st defendant– Anthinarapu Muthyalamma has been shown as possessor. Except for the year 2005-2006, all other pahani patrikas which have been exhibited as Exs.B-1 to B-16 speak of the possession of the 1st respondent-1st defendant over the suit schedule land. Even for the year 2005-06, Ex.B-15 pahani patrika speak of the possession of 1st respondent-1st defendant . 12. The main thrust of the respondents-defendants is on Ex.A-7 pahani patrika for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Panchayat Secretary. In view of the voluminous documents placed on record by the respondents-plaintiffs, stray entry in Ex.A-7 in favour of the plaintiff does not carry any weight. The lower appellate Court has considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to vacate the status quo order granted by the trial Court. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.28-03-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4501 of 2010 (Dated : 28-03-2011) [1] 1992 (1) SCC 719