IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.700 of 2011 Between: Sangeetham Shanker … Petitioner And Dharavath Deepla Naik … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mohammed Imran Khan Counsel for the respondent: Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.700 of 2011 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 20.12.2010 in CMA.No.7 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir confirming order dated 06.07.2009 in I.A.No.126 of 2008 in O.S.No.60 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Judge, Bhongir. I have heard Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of 194 square yards of land adjacent to house bearing No.2-11 in Sy.No.217/AA of Jiyapally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner claimed his title through document No.3582 of 2007, dated 12.03.2007. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in order to construct a house on the suit schedule plot, he obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat on 22.08.2008. When the respondent tried to occupy the said land by damaging the building material dumped by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.126 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The respondent resisted the application for injunction. According to him, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.217 of Jiyapally Village, that he constructed a house on the northern side of the petitioner’s house and is using the remaining open land as a backyard for agricultural purpose, that the vacant land is on the northern side as well as on the eastern side of the petitioner’s house and that the petitioner by suppressing the above fact, fraudulently obtained the registered sale deed showing wrong boundaries. That the enquiry of the respondent revealed that originally one D. Janu Nayak, the father of the petitioner’s vendors, sold an extent of 100 square yards under an unregistered sale deed to the petitioner, who constructed a residential building over an extent of 196 square yards and that as the vendors of the petitioner noticed the encroachment of the petitioner in the month of January 2007 got a panchayat conducted. It is further stated that the elders of the village advised the petitioner to purchase the encroached land and accordingly the vendors of the petitioner executed a registered sale deed to an extent of 96 square yards, but the petitioner has got a registered sale deed by showing wrong boundaries to an extent of 194 square yards on 12.03.2007. Both the Courts below rejected the petitioner’s application for injunction on the ground that there is a serious dispute regarding the boundaries in respect of the land purchased by him and that therefore, it is not possible to grant an order of injunction. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client holds a registered sale deed for an extent of 194 square yards and that the respondent has not set up any title in him except stating that the suit site is on the rear side of his building and that the same is being used by him for agricultural purpose. I find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. While conclusive findings on the petitioner’s plea on his possession needs to be rendered after full-fledged trial, the Courts below ought to have weighed the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury while considering the application for grant of injunction. The petitioner is relying upon a registered sale deed, which establishes his prima facie case. Even if the petitioner may not be entitled to an absolute order of injunction, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Courts below ought to have at least directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the vacant site. In this view of the matter, the orders under revision are set aside. The petitioner and the respondent are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today with respect to the suit schedule property. This shall necessarily mean that neither of them shall raise any structures over the said property till the disposal of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP.No.995 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.07.2011 ES