THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.855 OF 2009 Dated 17-3-2011 Between: Muddasani Ramesh Reddy. ..Petitioner. And: Ramidi Sanjeev Reddy. …Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.855 OF 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2008 in C.M.A.No.9 of 2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 3.3.2008 in I.A.No.1884 of 2007 in O.S.No.368 of 2007 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar has been confirmed. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The revision petitioner herein is the sole defendant and respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the suit. The parties will be referred to as they are shown in the interlocutory application in I.A.No.1884 of 2007 in O.S.No.368 of 2007 for the sake of convenience. The petition in I.A.No.1884 of 2007 in O.S.No.368 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying to grant temporary injunction retraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit land i.e., Ac.0.10 ½ guntas of land in S.No.313/B and C i.e., plaint A schedule property and Ac.0.06 ½ guntas of land in S.No.315/A i.e., plaint B Schedule property, i.e., Ac.0.17 guntas in total, situated at Thimmapur Mandal of Karimnagar District pending disposal of the original suit. Originally, the suit has been filed seeking for perpetual injunction. The specific case of the petitioner is that the suit property is part of his ancestral property of Ac.1.16 guntas of land in S.No.313/B and Ac.1.17 guntas of land in S.No.313/C and Ac.0.30 guntas of land in S.No.315/A and that he sold a part of land from the above survey numbers and the suit schedule land is the remaining land after making sales and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also his case that he filed O.S.No.459 of 2002 against one Adi Reddy, Kala and Ramidi Malla Reddy and that the said suit has been decreed and that by virtue of the decree obtained in the said suit, he took delivery of possession through the process of the Court on 8.8.2005. It is also his case that the respondent who is his neighbour is trying to trespass in the suit land. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner. But however, the respondent admitted that petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.459 of 2002 and obtained exparte decree. The further case of the respondent is that merely because the petitioner obtained exparte decree in O.S.No.459 of 2002, he will not get any right and that the decree will not convey any right to him and the alleged delivery is through process of Court is false. It is also his case that the land which is said to be delivered to the petitioner in E.P.No.110 of 2004 is the property purchased by Thakshashila Educational Society, Karimnagar (herein after referred as ‘society’) and that he is the correspondent of the said Society, which purchased total Ac.15.35 guntas of land from its vendors for the purpose of running school. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner has sold his land to Adi Reddy, Kalavathi and Ramreddi and Malla Reddy who in turn sold those lands to the said Society. On behalf of the petitioner Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked and on behalf of the respondent, R.1 to R.12 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on either side. Learned Junior Civil Judge came to a conclusion that unless it is made clear that the land sold by the petitioner to the vendors of the respondent and the suit lands were one and the same, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. The lower court further observed that the petitioner has obtained decree in O.S.No.459 of 2002 and the documents filed by him show that he had taken the possession of the land through the process of Court and that the pahanies filed by him indicate that the petitioner has title to the schedule property and accordingly, allowed the petition. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal. The appellate Court considering the entire material and came to a conclusion that the petitioner is having Ac.1.33 ½ guntas of land in S.No.313/B and C and after selling land to K.Adi Reddy under Ex.R.2, still he is having Ac.0.10 ½ guntas in S.No.313/B and C and similarly he is having Ac.0.06 ½ guntas of land out of 30 ½ guntas of land in S.No.315/A even after selling Ac.0.21 guntas of land to Kalavathi wife of Adi Reddy and therefore, the petitioner proved even after selling lands as above, the suit schedule lands were not sold by the petitioner and that the document filed by him further reveal that he filed a suit O.S.No.459 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and that after decree in the said suit, the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him through the process of Court. The appellate Court having considered the material placed before it, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that the survey map filed by the advocate-commissioner reveal that the petitioner was having only Ac.1.34 guntas of land in S.No.313 and Ac.0.20 guntas in S.No.315 and that the petitioner himself has sold Ac.1.33 ½ guntas of land in S.No.313/4 and 21 guntas of land in S.No.313 of 9 and thus it is clear that whatever land he was having he sold entire land to Adi Reddy and others and in fact the petitioner has no land. It is also submitted that taking advantage of some revenue entries, which are incorrectly showing the extent of the land, the petitioner filed this suit. The further case of the respondent is that he has already constructed an engineering college and suit land is in the middle of the lands purchased by the society and it is a part and parcel of the land purchased by the Society. It is also his contention that the lower Court failed to consider that the petitioner had no land left over after he has sold the land to the vendors of the respondent. The only point that arises for consideration is whether impugned order is sustainable? It is to be seen that the petitioner filed Exs.P.1 to P.12. Ex.P.1 is the pattadar pass book for the year 1995, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.459 of 2002, Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of the commissioner report in O.S.No.459 of 2002, Ex.P.4 is the Certified copy of the bailiff report and Exs.P.5 to P.12 are the Certified copies of pahanies. On appreciation of the entire material both the Courts below have felt that the suit schedule lands forms part of the unsold land remains with the petitioner. The appellate Court observed at its page Nos.10, 11 and 12 respectively as follows: “I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is having Ac.1.33 ½ guntas in Sy.No.313/B and C and after selling the land to K.Adi Reddy under Ex.R.2 (who in turn sold to defendant under Ex.R.3 out of his land Ac.1.33 ½ guntas) still he has having Ac.0.10 ½ guntas in Sy.No.313/B and C and similarly he is having Ac.0.06 ½ land out of Ac.0.30 ½ in Sy.No.315/A after selling Ac.0.21 guntas to Kala W/o Adi Reddy under Ex.R.13 sale deed dated 27.9.1999 (which is sold by said Kala to defendant under Ex.R.1 dated 9.6.2003) and the boundaries are absolutely correct.” “The defendant had admitted that the suit land is in between the land purchased by T.E.s from one Padma under Ex.R.6 sale deed dated 15.9.2000 relating to land in Sy.No.313/E, F, G and land purchased by the defendant in Sy.No.313/B and 313/C Ac.1.33 guntas from Adireddy and Kala by sale deed dated 9.6.2003 under Ex.R.3 and R.1, this itself is sufficient to say about the existence of suit land in between the lands of these purchasers and the suit land is not covered under the sale deeds executed by the vendors of defendant.” Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the suit O.S.No.459 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against Adinarayana and others in respect of the suit schedule land in the year 2002 and the defendant in the said suit remained exparte. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner claims to have obtained the possession of the property through the Court bailiff on 8.8.2005. Exs.P.2 to P.4 documents clinching establish that the petitioner has obtained the decree against Rami Reddy and others and took possession of the schedule property in pursuance of the decree in the said suit. Now the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is having only Ac.1.34 cents of land in S.No.313 and Ac.0.20 guntas of land in S.No.315 as seen from the rough sketch prepared by the Assistant Director Survey of land records. Admittedly, the said document was not filed before the lower court and hence it was not marked. If at, all the entries made in the revenue records and other pahanies which are filed by the petitioner are incorrect, the respondent ought to have taken steps to see that mistakes in the revenue records are corrected. Unless and until, it is shown that the recitals of the documents filed by the petitioner are incorrect, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner has obtained exparte decree in O.S.No.459 of 2002 and thus recitals of the documents prima facie go to show that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17-3-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.855 OF 2009 Dated 17-3-2011