HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1578 & 1732 of 2010 Date: 26.04.2011 Between : Kapuluru Madhusudhana Reddy. ….Petitioner And Basireddy Vijayakumar Reddy & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1578 & 1732 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : As these two revision petitions arise out of the interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.159 of 2008 in O.S.No.69 of 20008 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, which was filed for perpetual injunction. Pending the suit, he filed I.A.No.159 of 2008 against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his possession. It was the case of respondent No.1 before the trial Court that the 2nd respondent, who was the original owner of land admeasuring Ac.3.12 gts., sold the said land to one Duvvuru Konda Reddy and K.Srinivasulu under a registered agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney, dated 07.03.2003, and delivered possession to them, and since then, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by obtaining pattadar pass books in their names and they were also paying Cist to the Government. It was his case that the petitioner herein, who acted as a mediator to the said sale transaction, has colluded with respondents 2 and 3 and created an agreement of sale, dated 15.06.2002, as if he purchased the plaint schedule property from respondents 2 and 3 and started interfering with his possession. In the interlocutory application, the petitioner herein has filed counter affidavit alleging that he purchased the land from respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to an agreement of sale, dated 15.06.2002, and after paying the entire consideration amount, he was inducted into actual and physical possession of the same. In the aforesaid interlocutory application in I.A.No.159 of 2008, no oral evidence was let in, but Exs.A- 1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of plaintiff and Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked on behalf of petitioner herein, who was defendant No.1 in the suit. The trial Court allowed the application in I.A.No.159 of 2008, granting temporary injunction, but with a direction to the 1st respondent herein to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- per annum in the 1st week of February, till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by grant of injunction orders, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.13 of 2008, and at the same time, aggrieved by the condition imposed for deposit of Rs.20,000/-, the 1st respondent herein has filed C.M.A.No.15 of 2008 before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore. The lower appellate Court, by impugned order, dated 9th March 2010, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, these two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In these revision petitions, it is contended by Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the lower appellate Court misread the facts and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is submitted that earlier to the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein in O.S.No.69 of 2008, the petitioner herein also filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2008 against respondents 2 and 3 for specific performance of contract and also obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.42 of 2008. It is submitted that as much as there was an injunction in favour of the petitioner, the Court below ought to have accepted the possession of petitioner by rejecting the application filed by the 1st respondent for grant of injunction. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as per the agreement of sale entered with respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner was inducted into actual and physical possession of the suit schedule property by receiving the entire consideration amount. It is submitted by the learned counsel that although the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.17 of 2008 is for specific performance of contract, the lower appellate Court, on the premise that the said suit is filed for injunction simplicitor, has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the 2nd respondent, having received the entire consideration amount, has entered into registered agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney in favour of Duvvuru Konda Reddy and K.Srinivasulu, who in turn, executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 19.11.2007 by receiving the entire consideration amount and ever since, he is in possession of the same. It is submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are in collusion with the petitioner, as such, the suit filed in O.S.No.17 of 2008 is a collusive one, and as the respondents in I.A.No.42 of 2008 have not contested, the petitioner herein has obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.42 of 2008. It is submitted that as the 1st respondent was not party to the injunction orders, the said orders are not binding on him. It is submitted that in view of the valid transfer of title in favour of respondent No.1, he came into possession, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. In this case, it is to be noticed that undisputedly, the original owner of suit schedule property is respondent No.2 herein. It is the case of respondent No.1 that originally, a registered general power of attorney-cum- agreement of sale was entered into with Duvvuru Konda Reddy and K.Srinivasulu, who in turn, executed the sale deed in his favour on 19.11.2007. The said documents are registered documents, the execution of which, is also not denied by the 2nd respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioner that such registered agreement of sale-cum- general power of attorney in favour of Konda Reddy and Srinivasulu was obtained by coercion. When the execution of such registered documents was not in question, prima facie, the 1st respondent acquired title and possession pursuant to purchase of suit schedule property vide sale deed, dated 19.11.2007. Although it is pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner that the suit filed by the petitioner is earlier in point of time, and the same is also for specific performance of contact and injunction, but it is to be noticed that the 1st respondent, who acquired title and possession pursuant to sale deed executed on 19.11.2007, was not made party to the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2008. Initially, only respondents 2 and 3 herein were made parties, and it appears, only against them, injunction orders were obtained in I.A.No.42 of 2008. When it is the case of respondent No.1 that the said agreement of sale is a collusive one, much credence cannot be given to the same for granting injunction orders in I.A.No.42 of 2008, as against the claim of possession by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. It is stated that subsequently, the 1st respondent himself was impleaded in the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2008 after grant of injunction orders in I.A.No.42 of 2008. While it is true that the lower appellate Court has recorded a finding in its order treating the suit filed in O.S.No.17 of 2008 as a suit for injunction simplicitor under mistaken impression, but that itself cannot be the factor to accept the case of the petitioner about his possession of suit schedule property pursuant to an agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into with the 2nd respondent. Although some Cist receipts were filed under Ex.B-2 on behalf of petitioner herein, there is no other valid and acceptable evidence to accept the possession of petitioner over the suit schedule property. At the same time, it is to be noticed that to substantiate the case of the 1st respondent herein that originally 2nd respondent has executed registered general power of attorney-cum-agreement of sale by receiving entire consideration amount in favour of Duvvuru Konda Reddy and K.Srinivasulu, pattadar pass books issued in their favour, are filed in Exs.A-5 and A-6. The tax receipts were also filed under Ex.A-7, to show that originally, possession was delivered to Konda Reddy and Srinivasulu after executing registered general power of attorney-cum-agreement of sale in their favour. In view of the documentary evidence on record, filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, and as much as the execution of registered power of attorney-cum-agreement of sale in favour of Duvvuru Konda Reddy and K.Srinivasulu, is also not disputed, this Court is also of the view that prima facie case is made out by the 1st respondent for grant of temporary injunction, as such, same is rightly considered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. At the same time, there was also no reason for imposing the condition of depositing Rs.20,000/- by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. In view of the reasoned order passed by the lower appellate Court, I do not find any ground in this revision to interfere with the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th April 2011 ajr