THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.81 of 2010 (Dated :24-12-2010) Between: Angadi Veeresh and another …Petitioners A n d Nageswar Reddy R/o Leeja village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.81 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Gadwal, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge confirmed the order dated 8.7.2008 passed in I.A.No.127 of 2007 in O.S.No.116 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and whereas the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.116 of 2007. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in respect of the schedule property. They moved I.A.No.127 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the life time of the father of the 1st plaintiff, he along with the plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.10-28 guntas comprised in Survey No.220 of Leeja village under a sale deed dated 01.7.1963 for Rs.4,400/ in the name of the mother of the plaintiff No.1 and from Rangu Venkatramulu. Thereafter, plaintiffs 1 and 2 partitioned the suit schedule land into two equal shares i.e., Ac.5-10 guntas each. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Leeja mutated the suit land in the name of the plaintiffs, vide Proceedings No.619/95, dated 2.11.1998.The plaintiffs also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour. When they were cleaning the bushes in the suit land to raise crops, the defendant along with supporters illegally trespassed in to the suit land and tried to dispossess them. The plaintiffs could resist the acts of the defendant. Apprehending the high-handed acts of the defendant, the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction and also an interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. 3. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendants, as set out in the written statement, that one Thippamma, who is the grand mother of the defendant, is the original pattadar. The said Thippamma got two sons, namely, Rangu Venkatramulu and Rangu Govind. They divided the land into two equal parts and each of them got Ac.14.00 gts in the year 1978. In the year 1998, the father of the defendant and his brother divided the suit land in to equal shares and jointly sold an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas to one Yesana and another extent of Ac.3.20 guntas to one Chandrashekar. The father of the defendant got Ac.10-20 guntas and his brother Rangu Govindu got the remaining extent of Ac.10-20 guntas . The M.R.O., Leeja after conducting an enquiry issued ROR proceedings in File No.296/03, dated 5.4.2003 in favour of the defendant to the extent of Ac.10-20 guntas. Thereafter, Ac.5-20 guntas came to be mutated in the name of the defendant and the other half i.e., Ac.5-00 guntas was mutated in the name of Paramesh. The land fell to the share of Rangu Govindu was also purchased by the defendant and he got the land mutated in the name of Jayalaxmi and Mallikarjun, who are his wife and son. The plaintiffs started their claim after long lapse of 43 years and therefore, the suit claim is barred by limitation. 4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff got marked Exs.P- 1 to P-8 and whereas the defendant got marked Exs.R- 1 to R-13. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Junior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 8.7.2008. The reasoning assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the application needs to be noted and it is thus:- “19. Similarly, the revenue officials issued patta passbooks and title deeds even to the respondent and his family members in respect of the same land. According to the respondent, his father namely Rangh Venkatramulu got Ac.10-20 gunts and his paternal uncle Rangu Govindu got another extent of Ac.10-20 guts in Sy.No.222. As per the respondent the share of Rangu Venkatramuluto an extent of Ac.10-20 gts. Was again mutated in the names of himself and his son viz., Paramesh and the mutation proceedings were issued in their favour under Ex.R.7 on 5.4.2003 and they were also given the title deeds under Exs.R.8, R9 and patta pass books under Exs.R11 and R12 respectively. The respondent further claims that he purchased the land fell to the share of Rangu Govindu i.e., Ac.10-20 Gts and he got mutated that extent in the names of his wife Jayalaxmi and another son namely Mallikarjun and the revenue officials also mutated their names in the revenue records of rights under Ex.R.4. It is not known how the revenue officials could pass mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and his family members in respect of the same land without canceling any previous mutation proceedings. It is surprising to note that both parties herein are possessing mutation proceedings and patta pass books, title deeds in their favour in respect of the same land. Therefore, the mutation proceedings, patta passbooks and the title deeds produced by both parties does not inspire much confidence and I am of the considered view that they cannot be looked into at this stage to consider the claims of both parties, as it is the settled law that the entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish the title of any party. 20. Furthermore, the respondent failed to show the purchases claimed by him from Rangu Govindu in respect ofAc.10-20 Gts and no document is placed before this Court to establish the said factum. Even the respondent failed to show that the land remained in Sy.No.222 was divided among his father and his paternal uncle, viz., Rangu Govindu. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondent also failed to establish his defence. 21. Admittedly, in an application for temporary injunction it is the duty of the petitioner to establish the prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and that if any temporary injunction is not granted in his favour, he would suffer irreparable injury. In the above discussion it is already found that the purchase as claimed by the petitioners is hit YU/s 47 of AP (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In view of the law as settled by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P .,referred supra, any possession of the petitioners out of such void transaction is also to be held unlawful. It is the settled law that the relief of temporary injunction is an equitably relief and the courts are meant to assist the parties whose acts are legal and equitable. When the purchase as claimed by the petitioners is void and in view of the above observations that the revenue officials granted mutation, patta pass books and title deeds to both parties herein in respect of the same land, I hold that the petitioners failed to establish the prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and their petition must fail. Point is answered accordingly”. 5. The plaintiffs assailed the order passed in I.A.No.127 of 2007 in O.S.No.116 of 2007 by filing C.M.A.26 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. The learned Senior Civil Judge on reappraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case as to their possession over the lands in dispute and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal confirming the order passed in I.A.No.127 of 2007, by judgment dated 31.8.2009. The said judgment is assailed in this revision. 6. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners–plaintiffs and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- defendant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- plaintiffs submits that Exs.P-2 to P-6 speak of the possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs over the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, they deserve for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. He would also contend that the revenue authorities, having issued Ex.P-3 and P-4 pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs, cannot issue pattadar pass book in respect of the same land in favour of the defendant, his son and wife without canceling the pattadar passbook issued in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. A further submission has been made that the entries in Ex.P-7 and P-8, pahani patrikas, supports the version of the petitioners-plaintiffs. But the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court failed to give due importance to the entries therein and thereby, erred in discarding Exs.P-7 and P-8. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- defendant submits that the respondent-defendant placed on record khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and subsequent pahani copies, ROR proceedings and pattadar passbooks to establish his possession over the suit land and the same have been rightly considered by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and rejected temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiffs and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Curt does not warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The issue involved in this revision is: Whether the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Courts is justified in rejecting the temporary injunction sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs? 10. The petitioners-plaintiffs claim the property under a sada sale deed dated 1.7.1963 said to have been executed by the father of the defendant Rangu Venkataramulu. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered the validity of the sale deed and came to the conclusion that the sale deed is in utter violation of the provisions of Section 47 of A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. As per Section 47 of the said Act, sanction of Tahasildar is necessary for every sort of alienation and the sale in contravention of the said provision is bad. Admittedly, no permission has been obtained from the Tahasildar for alienation of the lands prior to the sada sale deed, dt.1.7.1963. When once the transfer itself is void, any transaction arising therefrom shall not convey any right to the purchaser. 11. Coming to the issue of possession over the land, the petitioners placed on record Exs.P-7 and P-8 pahani patrikas. The respondent-defendant produced khasra pahani patrika and true copies of pahanies for the years 2005-06 and mutation proceedings dated 5.4.2003. These documents speak of the possession of the respondent-defendant over the lands in dispute. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and came to the conclusion that the petitioners-plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. I do not see any valid grounds to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below. 12. In the result, the revision fails and the same is accordingly, hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.24-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.81 of 2010 DATED : 24-12-2010