HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.86 OF 2010 DATED: 09.03.2010 Between: Mohammed Abdul Rahiman .. Appellant And State of A.P. Rep.by The District Collector Visakhapatnam and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.86 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,J) Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of the respondents and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff, who filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved against the order dismissing the application purportedly filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad-interm injunction against the respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, as per the order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.890 of 2009 in O.S.No.205 of 2009. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit whereunder he sought for comprehensive declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the appellant is that originally the entire land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.27.53 cents was purchased by his parents under a registered sale deed, dated 31.03.1931 for a valuable consideration from the then owners. Thereafter, out of the said extent, different extent of land was sold under various sale deeds in the years 1984 and 1989. The original sale deed was marked as Ex.A.1 and the other sale deeds which have been executed in the years 1984 and 1989 were marked as Exs.A.2 to A.12. Original survey numbers 36 and 37 were subsequently changed to Sy.Nos.38 and 39. An extent of Ac.6.45 cents is in possession and enjoyment and around the said land fencing has been made which has been sought to be removed by the officials. Hence, the appellant filed the suit and interlocutory application seeking injunction for protecting his possession and enjoyment. 4. Contest to the claim of the appellant, the case of the respondents was that of total denial in respect of the title as set-forth. Further, it was stated that even as per the record submitted by the appellant, it was shown as ‘gayalu’ and therefore, it is vested in the Government. Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that Mulakuddu is an estate village within Vizianagaram Zamin Estate and subsequent to A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 it is vested in the Government and therefore, the claim of the appellant/plaintiff is wholly baseless and unsustainable. 5. Subsequent to filing of the respective pleadings, the documents filed on behalf of the appellant were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.19. However, no documents were filed on behalf of the respondents, nor any evidence has been adduced on either side. 6. Considering the rival submissions, the Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that since Ex.A.16 which is a certified copy of settlement fair adangal of Mulakuddu village was shown as ‘gayalu’ and therefore, the appellant could not make any claim over the land. Hence, this appeal. 7. On hearing the appeal and also perusing the material available on record the only point that arises for consideration on facts and circumstances of the case is whether the appellant has made out any prima facie case and balance of convenience for entitlement of interim injunction as sought for? 8. There is no dispute to the aforesaid facts as stated in their respective pleadings. The claim of the appellant is that he purchased the land in question under sale deed, dated 31.3.1931 and subsequently, part of the land was sold under various sale deeds under Exs.A.2 to A.12 which are of the years 1984 and 1989. There is absolutely no documentary evidence produced on behalf of the respondents as to the correctness or otherwise of the nature of these transactions. Admittedly, there is fencing around the suit land. It is the case of the respondents that the village is an estate and therefore, after its abolition, it is vested in the government. Except making a bald allegation and assertion in the counter affidavit, no material is forthcoming on behalf of the respondents to show that the very suit land is part of the estate which stood abolished and ultimately vested in the Government. No notification has been filed abolishing the estate or any other proceedings to show that the same was vested in the Government. In the absence of any such document forthcoming on behalf of the respondents to show that originally it is a government land or even subsequently vesting in the Government, it cannot be presumed that the land is of the Government, more so, when there is a prima facie evidence of registered documents of the years 1931, 1984 and 1989. That apart, the appellant has also filed other documents to show his possession, especially the photographs showing the fencing etc. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the appellant has sufficiently made out prima facie case and also the balance of convenience for entitlement of injunction as prayed for. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 30.09.2009 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.890 of 2009 in O.S.No.205 of 2009. Consequently, I.A.No.890 of 2009 is allowed granting ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant/plaintiff. The lower Court is also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:09.03.2010 Kvrm/ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.86 OF 2010 DATED: 09.03.2010