THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 167 of 2010 AND C.M.A.No. 168 OF 2010 Date:14.09.2010 Between: Kalakota Venkatramnarsimha Chary and another …Appellants And Chinthakunta Narender Reddy and four others …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 167 of 2010 AND C.M.A.No. 168 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao,J) C.M.A. No.167 of 2010 is filed against the order and decree dated 20.02.2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.62 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010. Whereas, C.M.A. No.168 of 2010 is filed against the order and decree dated 20.02.2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.61 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010. The petitioners/plaintiffs are the appellants in both the cases. They filed I.A.No.62 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit which is filed for grant of permanent injunction. They also filed I.A.No.61 of 2010 in the same suit seeking relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit. In the course of the enquiry before the learned Additional District Judge Exs.P-1 to P-29 were marked on behalf of the appellants and Exs.R-1 to R-15 were marked on behalf of the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge upon hearing both sides and considering the documentary evidence adduced on either side dismissed both the interlocutory applications filed by the appellants, against which the present appeals are filed. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Court below. The questions of fact and law which arise for consideration in both these appeals are one and the same and between the same parties. Therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by the following common judgment. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. For convenience sake, parties will be referred as ‘petitioners and respondents’. The subject matter of these appeals is landed property of Ac.01.06 guntas in Sy.Nos.642/C and Sy.No.642/D of an extent of Ac.01.05 guntas which is sub-divided into Sy.Nos.642/D1, 642/D2 and 643/D3 situate in the village Ghanpur Station, Warangal. According to the petitioners, the schedule lands fell to the share of their father K.Krishnamachary son of Ranga Chary under oral partition with his agnates about 40 years prior to filing of the suit. Their father was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his life time and thereafter, the petitioners claim to be in possession of the property inheriting the same as legal heirs. Their version is that the respondents are strangers to the schedule lands. The respondents 4 and 5 without having any right or interest in the schedule land, executed four sale agreements-cum- General Power of Attorneys on 29.12.2009 in favour of respondents 1 to 3. Under the guise of said agreements, it is said that the respondents made an attempt to forcibly occupy the schedule land for which the petitioners resisted and filed the suit and also the two interlocutory applications, against which the present appeals are filed. Except Ex.P-3 pahani for the year 1976- 77 relating to Sy.No.642/C, the pahanies relied upon by the petitioners indicate that K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary was the owner of the property. The fact that K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary died in the year 1957 is not disputed. Admittedly, K. Krishnamachary son of Ranga Chary who is the father of the petitioners died on 13.10.1995. As could be seen from the documents relied upon by the petitioners, their names were recorded as possessors of the suit land only from the years 1996- 97 to 1999-2000. In Exs.R-1 and R-2 pahanies for the years 1966- 67, 1977-78 and Ex.R-7 pahani for the year 1987-88 and Ex.R-9 pahani for the year 1988-89 indicate that K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary is pattedar and K.Krishnamachary is possessor. Curiously the father’s name of possessor has not been noted therein. On the other hand, the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs marked as Exs.P-1, P-2, and P-4 to P-11 show that K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary as the pattedar and it is noted therein that the occupant is K.Krishnamachary son of Rangachary. An important factor requires to be noticed in this context is that in Ex.P-9 the pahani for the year 1992-93, the father of the petitioners K.Krishnamachary son of Rangachary is mentioned as ‘Bhagasthudu’ (sharer). It is obvious from the documentary evidence adduced by the respondents that the name of the paternal grandfather of the respondents 4 and 5 is mentioned as pattedar right from 1966 onwards till 2007-08. The possessor’s column had been kept blank since the year 2000. As rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court, the theory that the property fell to the share of K. Krishnamachary son of Rangachary under partition as could be seen from Ex.P-9 pahani for the year 1992-93, cannot be believed because K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary admittedly died in the year 1957. The partition theory appears to have been invented by the petitioners as there could not have been any partition in the year 1992-93 between K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary, as K.Krishnamachary son of Ramachary had expired in the year 1957 itself. There was no mention about the alleged partition in the pahanies earlier to 1992- 93 from which obviously there appears no partition which was pressed into service by the petitioners. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are retired revenue officials having influence in the revenue department and they manipulated some entries in the pahanies taking the advantage of the fact that their father’s name and the grandfather’s name of the respondents 4 and 5 is one and the same. It is significant to notice that both the petitioners and the respondents 4 and 5 have been claiming to be the pattedars as well as possessors of the schedule land. It has been consistently mentioned in the pahanies that the grandfather of the respondents 4 and 5 is the pattedar, no evidence has been let in by the petitioners in proof of the partition between their father and the grandfather of respondents, absolutely there is no basis for any such partition. Considering all t these aspects, the learned Court below declined to grant injunction in both the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision in ANDE GANGAIAH AND OTHERS v. M.KRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS[1] to which one of us is a party and D. YADAMMA v. G. SURYANARAYANA[2] a decision rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court for the propositions that the entries in revenue records would not confer any right nor would take away any right existing in a rightful owner. A person in whose favour there is a registered sale deed, shall be presumed that he is in possession of the suit land because the question about the validity of the sale in his favour in view of Section 47 of the Act need not be considered at the interlocutory stage. There is no dispute about the authority of the propositions laid down in the above two judgments. But the ratio in the said two judgments does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. The fact situation in the instant case is altogether different. Here is a case where the petitioners approached the Court seeking relief of injunction asserting their title as well as their possession in the schedule lands. The burden is on them to establish prima facie that they have title to and have been in possession of the schedule mentioned property as claimed by them. Even in a suit for injunction if the circumstances warrant, the Court can go into prima facie title of the parties before granting the relief. Merely because the petitioners produced some pahanies for certain years, they are not automatically entitled for the relief of temporary injunction. The relief being equitable can only be granted when the petitioners are able to establish their possession in accordance with their assertion as to how in fact they came into possession of the suit lands. It is true that a detailed enquiry into the title of the parties need not be held at an interlocutory stage. But, the petitioners who approached the Court seeking an equitable relief must prima facie establish that they have a semblance of right in the schedule lands. On failure to establish prima facie title and possession, the party who seeks injunction must fail but not the opposite party who resists the claim. In the instant cases, the petitioners had set up title in them but they are unable to demonstrate at least for the limited purpose of an enquiry into interlocutory application for injunction as to how they actually acquired the title of the property. Except for few years, the respondents 4 and 5 and their predecessors-in-title have been in continuous possession of the schedule mention lands since 1966 onwards till 2007-08, the title as could be seen from various documents filed by both parties vested with K. Krishnamachary son of Ramachary who is no other than the paternal grandfather of respondents 4 and 5. Thus, the respondents could be able to demonstrate that prima facie title and possession vests with respondents 4 and 5. The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. If injunction is granted in favour of the petitioners, it results in irreparable loss to the respondents. The learned trial Court in our view has rightly refused the relief of injunction in both the interlocutory applications. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court and the conclusions arrived at do not require any interference in these appeals. On the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.Nos.62 of 2010 and 61 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010 are hereby confirmed. Both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ Date:14.09.2010. R. KANTHA RAO, J ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 167 of 2010 AND C.M.A.No. 168 OF 2010 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao,J) DATE:14.09.2010 [1] 2010 (1) ALD 3 (DB) [2] 2008(3) ALT 217