IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.994 OF 2011 Dt:28-09-2011 BETWEEN: Paidipally Sharada …. Petitioner AND Vuppula Srinivasa Rao …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANOUS APPEAL No.994 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 02-09-2011, in I.A. No.473 of 2011 in O.S. No.86 of 2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby the application filed for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant - plaintiff filed O.S. No.86 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the respondent for declaration of title and for recovery of possession in respect of open plot admeasuring 152.88 square yards in survey No.1094/I, situated in Karimnagr. Along with the suit, she filed I.A. No.473 of 2011 for temporary injunction stating that she is the absolute owner of an extent of 152.88 sq. yds. of land situated at Mukarampura locality of Karimnagar city. She purchased the same from one Ch. Shankar Rao through his GPA holder under registered sale deed No.507 of 1995, dated 18-1-1995. The respondent – defendant occupied the said property and trying to raise structures thereon. The respondent has no title over the property. On 01-04-2011, the appellant along with her husband and well-wishers approached the respondent to vacate the land but, the respondent refused to do so by denying the title of the appellant over the property. Thereafter, the appellant lodged a complaint before the Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar to stop construction of the respondent. But, the concerned authorities did not initiate any action against the respondent. 3. The respondent filed counter – affidavit contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is stated that the respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of 132 sq. yards of site out of plot No.21 covered under Sy. No.1094/1 situated at Mukarampura locality of Karimngar and he purchased the same from his vendor Vuppula Padma vide document No.4999/2002, dated 09-08-2002 and since then, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent further stated that his vendor purchased an extent of 320 sq. yards of land in plot No.21 in Sy. No.1094/1 from one Gattu Prasad, through a registered sale deed. After obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation to construct residential building, the respondent started construction. He contended that the appellant has no right or title over the schedule property and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. No oral evidence was adduced by either party. On behalf of the appellant Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. 5. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 02-09- 2011, by observing that there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present CMA is filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the original pattedar, by name, Raja Swamy, executed the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the land. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the husband of one of the daughters of the original pattedar sold the property to the respondent as his wife predeceased him, that the sale deed, dated 18-01-1995, is a sham document as it was executed during subsistence of the injunction order, dated 29-04- 1994, against the vendor of the appellant, by name, Ch. Shankar Rao, in I.A.No.143 of 1994 in O.S.No.31 of 1994 on the file of the same Court, and that now the question of granting injunction does not arise. 9. Grant or refusal of injunction is covered by three well established principles, namely, (1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 10. Appellant - plaintiff is claiming title through the sons of original pattedar, whereas the defendant claiming title through one of the daughters of the original pattedar. That aspect has to be decided in the suit itself. So, at this stage, it is not desirable to give any finding with regard to prima facie case. 11. With regard to balance of convenience, the defendant after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, started making construction and if the construction is stopped, the defendant would be put to irreparable loss. Even if the injunction order is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, it would not cause any irreparable loss or damage to her case. If ultimately, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, she can as well recover the possession of the vacant site after demolishing the structures therein, at the cost of the defendant. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. But, however, it is made clear that if ultimately, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, she can recover the vacant possession of the site after demolishing the structures if any that may be raised by the defendant. 12. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as early possible, subject to other old and part-heard cases. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J September 28, 2011. KTL