IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.120 of 2010 & 121 of 2010 C.R.P.No.120 of 2010 Between: Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner AND Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Respondent C.R.P.No.121 of 2010 Between: Yendluri Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner AND Sakhamuri Narasimha Rao .. Respondent COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the judgments and decrees in C.M.A.Nos.29 and 30 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Khammam, dated 18-01-2010 in which the appellant is common while the respondents-plaintiffs are different. As the questions in controversy between the parties in both the suits are common, they are being disposed of by the common order. O.S.No.468 of 2009 and O.S.No.467 of 2009 were filed against the appellant by different plaintiffs claiming that the plaintiffs purchased their respective suit schedule properties from Shaik Rajia Sulthana under respective registered sale deeds dated 16-09-1991 for Rs.8,600/- each and are in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots since then. Both the plaintiffs claimed to have worked in a medical shop of the defendant’s father and the defendant’s father also purchased 248.88 square yards to the south of the site purchased by the plaintiff in O.S.No.468 of 2009. The registered documents in favour of both the plaintiffs were claimed to have been kept with the father of the defendant and they claimed to have not taken the registered sale deeds back when they shifted to their native village, Nandigama of Sathenapally Mandal of Guntur District. Both the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s father did not return the registered sale deeds in spite of a demand and they came to know that the defendant’s father executed registered gift settlement deeds in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit sites claiming them to be his own sites. The documents dated 7-10-2009 are not valid documents in law and the defendant’s father tried to encroach upon the properties. The plaintiffs complained to the District Registrar, Khammam, against the gift settlement deeds and the defendant even filed a caveat before the Court with false allegations for which a reply was given. The defendant interfered with the labourers engaged for clearing the vacant suit sites and hence, the suits for permanent injunction and the interlocutory applications for interim injunctions. The defendant in identical defence in both the suits contended that his father purchased the suit schedule properties in both the suits by paying the entire sale consideration and received the title deeds of the properties from both the plaintiffs. As the original title deeds were given to him, the defendant’s father did not obtain any regular documents later and he executed registered Gift Settlement deed No.5551/2009 in favour of the defendant. The defendant is enjoying the property with absolute possession since then and the suits are also barred by limitation. While denying the claims of the plaintiffs, the defendant claimed to have offered some amounts to both the plaintiffs on humanitarian grounds and the defendant claimed that he cleared the entire plot covering both the properties, obtained Electricity Service Connection No.521 for the structures raised in the properties and is paying necessary taxes to the Municipality and the Revenue Department. The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs are trying to grab the property and hence, desired the petitions for interim injunctions to be dismissed. In both the petitions, Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked respectively during the enquiry, while no documents were produced on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court passed orders in I.A.No.1661 of 2009 in O.S.No.468 of 2009 and I.A.No.1659 of 2009 in O.S.No.467 of 2009 on the same day i.e. 20-11-2009 in which it referred to the rival contentions and evidence and also the photographs filed during the enquiry into I.A.No.1684 of 2009. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs clearly established that they are the owners of respective properties having purchased the same under the registered documents dated 16-09-1991 and it is also admitted that both of them worked in the medical shop of the defendant’s father. The complaints made by the respective plaintiffs in Exs.A.2 to A.4 in each matter, the copy of the registered Gift Settlement deed in favour of the defendant in Ex.A.5 and the reply notice issued by the defendant in Ex.A.6 were also referred to and it was noticed by the trial Court that the contents of reply notice are contradictory to the averments of the counter affidavits filed in both the petitions in which it was not pleaded that the property was purchased by the father of the defendant in the name of the plaintiffs. The trial Court also noted that the details of the dates etc., of the purchases by the defendant’s father were not stated and discrepancies about the respective plaintiffs taking away any document from the custody of the defendant’s father were taken adverse note of by the trial Court. The absence of any action on behalf of the defendant’s father for getting such a document retained was also noted and the trial Court, therefore, concluded that mere handing over of the registered title deeds by the plaintiffs to the defendant’s father cannot confer any title or possession and consequently, the trial Court granted temporary injunctions in both the matters in favour of the respective plaintiffs. In appeal, the Appellate Court in C.M.A.Nos.29 of 2009 and 30 of 2009 decided on 18-01-2010 had again gone through the rival contentions, pleadings and evidence and noted that the respective plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of the respective suit schedule properties having purchased the same under registered sale deeds in 1991. The Appellate Court also noted that handing over of the registered title deeds to the defendant’s father by the respective plaintiffs in 1992 was also not disputed and it came to the conclusion that the mere handing over of the documents of title to the defendant’s father cannot lead to any presumption of consequential handing over of the possession. The Appellate Court also noted that the father of the defendant, a businessman aged about 72 years with a lot of experience, would not have believed that mere handing over of the original title deeds will transfer the title in his favour. The Appellate Court also noted that the registered Gift Settlement deed in favour of the defendant appears to be an attempt to give some colour of title in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant and consequently, the Appellate Court also concurred with the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. It is these orders which are under challenge in these two Civil Revision Petitions contending that the Courts below failed to consider the effect of registered Gift deeds coupled with the third party affidavits filed by the neighbours to the property, the electricity connection receipt/bill dated 6-11-2009 and the photographs showing the structures existing in the land. The revision petitioner pleaded that the possession of the title deeds since 1991 will show the ground realities and the respective plaintiffs not residing at Paloncha since long were not in possession of the open piece of land. The revision petitioner, therefore, desired the impugned orders to be reserved. Hears Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. The point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to the interim injunctions granted in their favour by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court? The factual background is not seriously in dispute and the purchase of both the suit schedule properties by the respective plaintiffs under registered Sale Deeds dated 16-09-1991 is not in dispute. The presumption in law is that possession follows title and the plaintiffs as the lawful owners of the respective suit schedule properties can also be presumed prima facie to be in possession of the properties. Both the plaintiffs admittedly worked in the shop of the defendant’s father and they claimed that they kept the registered documents of title in their favour in the custody of the owner of the shop/their employer out of confidence and belief. The same cannot be considered to be not in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events. If the defendant’s father had purchased both the suit properties at the time the original sale deeds were handed over to him, he being an experienced and seasoned businessman could not have failed in obtaining appropriate evidence of the alleged purchase made by him as observed by the Appellate Court and it will be difficult to believe that he innocently believed the delivery of title deeds itself to be transfer of title and possession of the property in his favour. The execution of the registered Gift Settlement deed by him in favour of his son will not confer any title in favour of the defendant and what can be conveyed by the father is only what belonged to him and not more. While the original ownership of the properties with the respective plaintiffs is not in dispute, the defendant did not file or prove a single document to show that since the alleged purchase leading to the delivery of original sale deeds to his father, his father or later himself were in possession and enjoyment of the respective suit properties. Though it may be true that both the suit properties are open plots, still there cannot be total absence of any documentary evidence showing possession, for instance by paying any vacant land tax or any such other instances of showing the exercise of right to possession over the properties by the defendant or his father. T h e prima facie conclusions of the trial Court and their confirmation by the Appellate Court under the circumstances cannot be considered to be unreasonable or divorced from the material on record and there is no strong reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below in these revision petitions. Under the circumstances, both the Civil Revision Petitions have to fail and they are accordingly dismissed without costs. However, the trial Court may make every effort to dispose of the suits on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties as expeditiously as possible uninfluenced by any observations made herein. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-11-2010 Ksn