IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1908 OF 2010 DATED:23.06.2010 Between: Palla Bhaskar Reddy and another … Petitioners And Chamakura Yadagiri Reddy and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1908 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dt.23.3.2010 passed in C.M.A. No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the C.M.A. and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.370 of 2008. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in respect of Acs.3.27 gts. in Sy. No.415/A, Acs.3.07 gts. in Sy. No.415/AA, Acs.2.18 gts. in Sy. No.415/EE of Ikkurthi Village. The total extent of the land comprising these survey numbers is Acs.9.12 gts. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of Acs.3.15 gts. in Sy. No.415/A and Acs.2.18 gts. in Sy. No.415/EE and it is their ancestral property. It is their further case that plaintiff No.3 purchased Acs.3.07 gts., comprised in Sy. No.415/AA from the brother of the first plaintiff under sale deed dt.5.1.2004. The plaintiffs also filed I.A. No.1124 of 2008, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The defendants filed counter resisting the application. According to them, their father purchased Ac.3.20 gts., in the year 1973 from Chamakura Chandra Reddy in the name of their sister, namely, Pinnapureddy Anjamma, and they are in possession of the property on behalf of their sister. The plaintiffs filed six documents on their behalf and marked them as Exs.P.1 to P.6 whereas the defendants filed ten documents on their behalf and marked them as Exs.R.1 to R.10. The learned Junior Civil Judge on appreciation of the material brought on record and hearing the counsel appearing for the parties dismissed the application by order dt.25.8.2009 on the ground that the plaintiffs have not chosen to file any other document showing their possession over the suit schedule lands on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs filed C.M.A. No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir, assailing the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, in I.A. No.1124 of 2008. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on re-appreciation of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and thereby proceeded to allow the appeal and consequently granted temporary injunction by order dt.23.3.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. Heard Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the defendants are able to prove that the name of their sister has been recorded in the possessory column in pahani patrikas and that it is sufficient to dispel the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel further submits that the sister of the petitioners/defendants is the owner of the property having purchased the same under a simple sale deed dt.14.10.1973. He would also contend that the appellate court is not justified in reversing the order of the trial Court whereunder injunction sought for by the plaintiffs has been refused. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the order impugned in the revision. The petitioners/defendants claim that her sister purchased the property under simple sale deed in the year 1973, but they did not choose to place on record the sale deed said to have been obtained by their sister as on this date. Instead, the respondents/plaintiffs placed on record the registered sale deed to substantiate the claim over the property and marked the said sale deed as Ex.P.1. The appellate court having taken note of the respective contentions of the parties, recorded a finding that in the given facts and circumstances, possession follows title. For better appreciation, I may refer to the relevant portion of the order passed by the Appellate Court, which reads as under: “The Mandal Revenue Officer having granted pattedar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property, not supposed to conduct panchnama at his whims and fancies. If really he found that, the defendant is in possession of the part of the property, he ought to have passed orders cancelling the pattedar pass book and title deed stands in the name of the plaintiffs. There is no such order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Both parties admitted that, the disputed property of Ac.3.20 gts. is a vacant land and cattle are grazing in the said land. When crop is there it can be said that particular person is in possession of the property. When there is no crop, the only presumption is that, possession follow the title. The learned trial Judge not considered this aspect and simply accepted the pahanies filed by the defendant in respect of Ac.3.20 gts. in respect of the plaint schedule properties. There is no explanation in the pahanies how the name of Anjamma was mutated in the revenue record and what are the basic documents and when the mutation orders are passed by the revenue officials for mutating the name. Unless a specific order is there mutating the name of the particular party in the revenue record, the stray entries in the revenue record do not create any rights over the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs who prima facie established their title and possession in the schedule property is entitled to seek temporary injunction in respect of the schedule property.” The respondents/plaintiffs placed on record the sale deed on which they rely and marked the same as Ex.P.1. They also placed on record pattadar pass books and title deeds issued by the revenue authorities and marked them as Exs.P.2 to P.5. The respondents/plaintiffs have made out their prima facie case by placing on record the title documents, and balance of convenience is also in their favour. The appellate court considered the material available and proceeded to grant temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________________ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 23.06.2010 bnr