THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1849 of 2007 Dated 10th February 2011 Between: Sayad Misba Ahmed …PETITIONER(S) And The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam and another …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1849 of 2007 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this CRP is whether the order of the appellate Court refusing temporary injunction to the petitioner suffers from material irregularity and calls for any interference by this Court. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.683 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam (trial Court). The said suit was brought for a perpetual injunction for protection of the alleged possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the suit property which he says is an extent of Ac.19-26 gts in Sy.No.519 of Jujjulraopet village, Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District. Along with the said suit, he also filed a temporary injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.19 of 2006 seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction for protection of his alleged possession over the said property pending disposal of the suit. 3. Respondents are the District Collector, Khammam, and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Kusumanchi Mandal, Khammam District, i.e. defendants 1 and 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter. Their main plea is that the extent of Sy.No.519 is Ac.11- 19 gts and it is not Ac.19-26 gts and that on the eastern side of the land in Sy.No.519, the land in Sy.No.506 is situate and it is a Government land and that the plaintiff wants to grab that land in the guise of setting up claim to Sy.No.519. The trial Court after considering the documents filed by both sides held that petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction and in that view of the matter it dismissed the said petition by its order dated 22.09.2006. The petitioner filed CMA No.27 of 2006 questioning that order. The appellate Court i.e. the I Additional District Judge, Khammam, considered the matter and it also concluded that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction and holding so it confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the CMA. 4. The details of the documentary evidence let in by both sides before the trial Court on the point are mentioned in the appendix of evidence given at the foot of the trial Court’s order. It is also seen that in the CMA the petitioner further filed a document and it was marked as Ex.P.4. The documents filed by both sides shall be referred to in the course of the order. 5. Sri V.Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, took me through copies of Exs.P.1 to P.4 documents filed by the petitioner and also Exs.R.1 to R.8 documents filed by the defendants-respondents and pointed out that both the Courts below erred in refusing the temporary injunction to him. Sri P.V.Narasimhaiah, learned counsel sought time on behalf of the Government Pleader but it is not necessary to grant any time. 6. As already mentioned supra, the stand of the defendants- respondents is that the extent of Sy.No.519 is only Acs.11-19 gts. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance upon his Ex.P.1 pattedar passbook, Ex.P.2 title deed for the land in question issued by the revenue authorities and also Ex.P.3 validation certificate given under Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, and contended that these documents which were issued by the revenue authorities themselves show that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land i.e. Acs.19-26 gts. in Sy.No.519 of the said suit village. It may be noted that these three documents prima facie appear to have been given by the revenue authorities only on the information given by the petitioner. The version of the petitioner is that his vendors namely Ramasahayam and Anantha Reddy earlier possessed an extent of Acs.19-26 gts in Sy.No.519. The petitioner also filed Ex.P.4 Khasra Pahani and other pahanis before the appellate Court as additional evidence in this case. 7. It may be noted here that in the CRP the respondents have filed a counter along with certain documents. One of the documents is copy of a letter dated 18.05.2006 addressed by the Assistant Director (Survey & Land Records), Khammam, to the District Collector, Khammam. This letter appears to have been written by the Assistant Director to the District Collector in connection with the dispute raised by the petitioner through his application dated 01.05.2006. The said letter itself shows that prior to the revision survey taken up in 1329 Fasli i.e. 1920 AD an extent of Acs.19-26 gts were shown in Sy.No.519 but during the revision survey which was taken up and completed in the year 1337 Fasli i.e. 1928 AD the extent of Sy.No.519 was arrived at as Acs.11-19 gts. The Assistant Director further reported that once the revision survey records have been finalised and implemented the old records are not considered. This letter has been expressly relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel to show that in 1920 AD the extent of Sy.No.519 was Acs.19-26 gts and therefore the same extent should be held to be in existence now in Sy.No.519. It is not possible to pronounce one way or the other in this CRP on this aspect and this is a matter to be decided finally on evidence in the trial of the suit. 8. What should be noted is that the above letter dated 18.05.2006 of the Assistant Director shows that even by 1928 AD, the extent of land in Sy.No.519 i.e. the disputed survey number was shown as Acs.11-19 gts and since then the said survey number is held to contain only that extent. 9. The appellate Court commented that Exs.P.1 to P.4 documents namely pattedar passbook, title deed, validation certificate and copies of pahanis were also issued by the revenue authorities and they show that the extent of Sy.No.519 is Acs.19- 26 gts and they support the petitioner’s case. It also commented that the revenue authorities did not file the originals of Tippan of the village, Sethwar and other documents which show that the extent of Sy.No.519 is only Acs.11-19 gts and that the question whether the extent of Sy.No.519 is Acs.19-26 gts as contended by the petitioner or only Acs.11-19 gts as contended by the revenue authorities should ultimately be decided upon taking evidence in the suit and that question cannot be decided in the temporary injunction petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the above observations of the appellate Court in fact show that it held in favour of the petitioner and therefore it wrongly refused to grant the temporary injunction while it ought to have granted the same. There is no force in this contention. What the appellate Court observed is that though the documents filed by the revenue authorities support their case but still they have to file the originals and only upon filing of originals the matter can be finally decided in the suit after recording the evidence. Thus the above conclusion of the appellate Court shows that it did not find in favour of the petitioner. 10. The trial Court and the appellate Court gave their own reasons in dismissing the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction. Apart from the above documents, it may be noted that the above letter of the Assistant Director (Survey & Land Records), Khammam, shows that after the revision survey was carried out in 1928, the extent of Sy.No.519 was found to be only Acs.11-19 gts. This itself shows that there was some thing wrong in the revenue records in showing the extent of Sy.No.519 as Acs.19-26 gts and whether the petitioner’s contention is right or the respondents’ contention is right can only be decided in the suit in view of the above letter of the Assistant Director. 11. It should be noted at the risk of repetition that Exs.P.1 to P.3 documents filed by the petitioner namely his pattedar passbook, title deed and validation certificate appear to have been issued on the information given by the petitioner himself without holding any requisite enquiry and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his unregistered document i.e. the title deed and the pattedar passbook and the title deed issued by the revenue authorities. In view of the letter of the Assistant Director (Survey & Land Records), Khamma, mentioned supra much credence cannot be given to the documents filed by the petitioner at this stage to uphold his case in the temporary injunction petition. 12. In the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the order of the appellate Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or infirmity which calls for interference by this Court. The truthfulness or otherwise of the case of the petitioner has to be ultimately decided in the suit. Accordingly, the point is decided in the negative and the CRP is dismissed. No costs. The trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 10th February, 2011 CVRK