THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4662 OF 2010 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Md.Jahangeer …Petitioner And Smt.Bardrunnisa …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4662 OF 2010 ORDER: The learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak, passed orders in I.A.No.333 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of 2008 on 07.09.2009 vacating the ex parte injunction previously granted. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff in the suit filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2009 before the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. By order and decree dated 22.09.2010, the appellate Court allowed the appeal directing both the parties to maintain status quo. This order is called in question before this Court by the defendant in the suit. This Court, by order dated 07.10.2010, granted interim suspension of the order and decree of the appellate Court. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. Facts are not in dispute. The husband of the plaintiff, Mohammed Abdul Khadeer, was the owner of the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.10.01 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Nawabpet Village of Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. He sold the said land under registered sale deed No.857/1998 dated 24.10.1998 (Ex.B.1) to one Meer Fayaz Ali who in turn sold an extent of Acs.7.00 guntas under registered sale deed No.4996/2005 dated 11.11.2005 (Ex.B.3) to the defendant. The remaining extent of Acs.3.01 guntas continued to be with Meer Fayaz Ali, who executed registered sale deed No.6022/2005 dated 19.12.2005 (Ex.B.2) re-conveying Acs.2.38 guntas to the plaintiff’s husband, Mohammed Abdul Khadeer. Then, the husband of the plaintiff, Mohammed Abdul Khadeer, unilaterally executed registered cancellation deed No.9326/2006 dated 05.12.2006 (Ex.B.4) cancelling the sale deed executed by him as long back as in the year 1998 (Ex.B.1). Thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff is said to have executed registered gift deed No.2192/2007 (Ex.A.2) in her favour on 26.02.2007, basing on which she filed the suit O.S.No.48 of 2008. The trial Court in the first instance granted an ex parte interim injunction on 18.07.2008. However, taking note of the fact that the cancellation deed, Ex.B.4, was executed unilaterally and was not binding upon the defendant or his vendor and also taking into account the fact that possession was handed over to the defendant’s vendor and his name was mutated in the revenue records, the trial Court opined that the plaintiff had failed to prove her prima facie case for granting an interim injunction and accordingly vacated the ex parte interim injunction granted earlier and dismissed the application. The trial Court also took note of the fact that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2008 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, seeking a perpetual injunction against the plaintiff and others in respect of the extent of Acs.7.00 guntas purchased by him which formed part of the suit land and that he had been granted a temporary injunction therein which was still subsisting. In appeal, the appellate Court, having referred to the subsistence of the order of injunction passed in favour of the defendant by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in O.S.No.17 of 2008, surprisingly held that the conflicting entries in the pahanies filed by both sides indicated that it could not be stated that as to who was in possession of the property as on date and that pending the suit, both parties should maintain status quo. It accordingly allowed the appeal with the said direction. The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff does not dispute that the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in favour of the petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.17 of 2008 still holds the field. In the light of this temporary injunction order which was referred to by the appellate Court, the subsequent finding by it that it could not be stated with certainty as to who was in possession of the suit property does not hold water. The facts on record indicate that the defendant having purchased the extent of Acs.7.00 guntas out of the suit schedule property from Meer Fayaz Ali was put in possession thereof. Further, the document dated 19.12.2005 (Ex.B.2) executed by Meer Fayaz Ali re-conveying the extent of Ac.2.38 guntas back to the plaintiff’s husband specifically mentioned that the plaintiff’s husband would have no right over the land sold by him to the defendant, being the extent of Acs.7.00 guntas. Merely because the parties, basing on their registered documents, approached the revenue authorities for mutation which resulted in conflicting entries, the appellate Court was not correct in holding that it could not be stated as to who was in possession of what extent of the suit land. There is no indication whatsoever of the defendant having been dispossessed from the land purchased by him from Meer Fayaz Ali, which stood protected under the re-conveyance sale deed (Ex.B.2). Further, the subsisting temporary injunction granted in favour of the defendant by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.17 of 2008 was ample indication of the fact that he was in possession of the land purchased by him. The appellate Court therefore ought not to have diluted the said temporary injunction in an independent proceeding, viz., the present suit, by directing status quo to be maintained by both parties. The order and decree of the appellate Court, being erroneous on facts and in law cannot therefore be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR