IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. Date:27-04-2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. No.9 of 2011 B e t w e e n: Sultanpur Plot Owners Welfare Association, Registration No.5071 of 1994, Rep. by its President, Sri Devabhushanam, S/o. Samuel, Aged about 50 Years, No.101, Viswajyothi Apartments, Swamy Ramanda Thirtha Marg, Road No.9, Brahmanwada, Begumpet, Hyderabad. - - - Appellant/ Respondent No.3 Defendant No.3. A n d Sara Krishnaiah and thirteen others. - - - Respondents. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY C.M.A. No.9 OF 2011 JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C. is directed against order passed in I.A. No.1156 of 2010 in O.S. No.75 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2. The appellant is the third respondent in the Interlocutory Application and third defendant in the suit and the respondents Nos.1 to 11 are the petitioners in the Interlocutory application and plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents Nos.12 to 14 are the remaining respondents in the Interlocutory application and remaining defendants in the suit respectively. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Interlocutory Application. 3. The petitioners filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and to declare G.P.A.s document No.219/1985, 450/1985 and 249/1985 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondents and, they also filed the interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. to grand temporary injunction against the Respondents 1 to 3 on the ground that they happened to be the absolute owners of the property and without any manner of right the respondents Nos.1 to 3 were trying to mutate their names for the property with a request to prevent the respondents 1 to 3 from doing so. 4. Briefly the claim made in the petition is as follows : The petitioners got the suit property from their father Sara Radhaiah who was the protected tenant of land admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas in Survey No.457/1 and at the instance of their father an order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, declaring that they (petitioners) were eligible to be declared as the owners of the property. Further, the petitioners 4 to 6 acquired Ac.4-20 guntas of land in S.No.457/1 from their ancestor Byagari Veeraiah who was the protected tenant of that property and obtained ownership certificate for the property from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Accordingly, their names were mutated in the relevant revenue records. Further, the second respondent approached the petitioners and obtained their signatures for the purpose of obtaining pattedar passbooks and title deed passbooks in their names taking advantage of their innocence and created false documents including the General Power of Attorneys allegedly executed by them and obtained occupancy certificate from the Revenue Authorities without conducting of proper enquiry. Further the respondents 1 to 3 are trying to mutate their names approaching the Respondent No.4 deleting the names of the petitioners for the properties. Hence, the petition. 5. The third respondent filed counter denying the pleas taken in the petition and further contending as follows : Originally Manne Vittal was the pattedar of Survey No.457 admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas Kummari Laxmaiah was the pattedar of Ac.8-20 guntas of land in survey No.457/1, Manne Veeraiah was the pattedar of Ac.7-00 guntas of land, Chinnagalla Pochaiah was the pattedar of Ac.4-00 guntas of land, Byagari Balamma was the pattedar of Ac.4-20 guntas of land, Kummari Narsaiah was the pattedar of Ac.4- 30 guntas of land and Manne Narayana was the pattedar of Ac.4-00 guntas of land in survey No.457/1. All of them jointly appointed D. Venkateshwar Rao as their General Power of Attorney holder to execute sale deeds in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the said lands. On the application of the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted occupancy certificate under the Inam Abolition Act and also issued final patta certificate in favour of the members of the third respondent which became final. Further, on the request of the members of the third respondent, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records surveyed the land and fixed its boundaries observing necessary formalities but the stones fixed were consequently removed by the petitioners taking advantage of the absence of the members of the third respondent by reason of which, the latter approached the Revenue Authorities to resurvey the property and fix the stones which proved to be futile at the outset. However, on further persuasion the Village Revnue Officer, Sultanpur, mutated the names of the members of the third respondent in the relevant records for the properties. Ultimately, it is pleaded to dismiss the interlocutory application on the ground that it is totally misconceived. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked and on behalf of the third respondent Exs.B-1 to B-20 were marked. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that the prayer made in the suit itself provides that the G.P.A. holder entered into various transactions and there is no basis to say that the petitioners got existing rights over the property which requires to be established by cozent evidence but still the lower Court delivered the status-quo order in the Interlocutory Application which therefore is not tenable. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners placed sufficient material to uphold their claim for the grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit as prayed for but in fact, the order of status quo supports their claim and in any case, there should have been clear findings with reference to the rights of the parties. 9. Here, it is to be mainly considered as to whether the G.P.As marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3 claimed to be executed by the petitioners are true documents and what transpired subsequent to the execution of those documents including the question of transfer of the properties as claimed. Therefore, pahanies pertaining to the earlier period filed by the petitioners may not have any relevancy at all here. 10. It is observed by the lower Court examining Exs.B-9, B-10 and B-11 office copy of application dated 5.2.2003, certified copy of representation made by the third defendant and certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.148 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy that the third respondent association had taken necessary measures for the demarcation of the plots purchased by them and Ex.A-7 to A-9 (GPAs) provide that no boundaries were fixed for the disputed properties and the pahanies pertaining to the years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 show that the petitioners were the occupants and pattedars of the properties, but the pahanies for the years 2008-09 though show that the petitioners were the pattedars of the properties, the possessor columns therein are kept blank and further the respondents filed pahanies for the years 2009-10 showing the name of the third respondent under pattedar columns while the possessory columns are kept blank therein also and so on and with such observations came to the conclusion that no definite material was placed to ascertain who was actually in the possession of the property and thus ultimately delivered the order of status-quo directing the parties to get ready for the trial and disposal of the suit. 11. The order passed by the Trial Court is in the nature of preventing both the parties from entering the property. When the petitioners have approached the Court with a request to grant the relief prayed for claiming that they are in the possession of the property, which the third respondent denies asserting that its members are in the possession of the property, it is obligatory on the part of the lower Court to give a definite finding about the possession of the property as the case may be, taking into consideration the available material. While disposing of civil cases, relevant probabilities are to be taken into consideration and that which is more probable is to be upheld. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, it is advisable to give direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the lower Court to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment independently giving opportunity to all the parties on record to adduce necessary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE:27-04-2011. Dsh.