THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5477 of 2009 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 18.09.2009, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 467 of 2009 and allowing the application in I.A. No. 312 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2222 of 2008, filed by the petitioner granting ad interim injunction restraining the respondent and his family members and agents/henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property from one Sri. R. Pandari under registered sale deed dated 13.12.1984. Though the said sale deed establishes that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property, yet both the Courts below failed to look into the same and granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. He further submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs have themselves admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the interim application that they are not in possession of the suit schedule property, but the Courts below ignoring the said admission, have erroneously granted ad interim injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. He further submitted that even though the petitioner-defendant filed third party affidavits to establish that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, but both the Courts below, failed to look into the same, and granted interim injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.M.A. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that Ex.P1- certified copy of sale deed dated 13.12.1984 clearly establishes that the husband of respondent No.1 along with the petitioner-defendant and another brother jointly purchased the property, and that it was obtained in the name of the petitioner-defendant. Ex.P2-notarizedaffidavit, executed by the petitioner-defendant, shows that the petitioner-defendant has himself stated that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.12,000/-, his eldest brother P.V. Narasimha Rao, the husband of respondent No.1 contributed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards purchase of the suit schedule property. That his brother took possession of eastern portion admeasuring 64.83 Sq. yds., and thereafter, the petitioner-defendant constructed a house thereon. Apart from the documents-Exs. P1 and P2, the respondents-plaintiffs have also filed Exs. P3 to P7, namely Death Certificate of the husband of respondent No.1, receipt of property tax, water and electricity bills. The respondents-defendants have also filed third party affidavits to show that they are owners of the suit schedule property. Since the documents filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in their favour, the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that trial Court granted interim injunction in their favour, which the appellate Court rightly refused to interfere. Therefore, he submitted that there is no need to interfere with the order under revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs. To appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, I have perused the material placed on record. Ex.P2-notarized affidavit dated 09-04-2002, executed by the petitioner-defendant shows that the petitioner-defendant has himself stated that his eldest brother PV.L. Narasimha Rao, the husband of respondent No.1 contributed an amount of Rs.4,000/- for purchase of the suit schedule property, and thereafter, he took possession of the eastern side of the land admeasuring 64.83 Sq.yds. The suit schedule property is purchased by the contributions of three brothers and the portion in which the house is constructed was given to the respondents- plaintiffs. The petitioner-defendant also admitted in Ex.P2-notarized affidavit that his eldest brother, husband of respondent No.1, constructed the house with his own funds and that he alone has been paying property tax, water tax and electricity charges etc. to the concerned authorities in respect of the suit schedule property, which is given Municipal No. 10-113/1/A. Thus from the above contents of Ex. P2-notarized affidavit executed by the petitioner- defendant, it becomes clear that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. Later, it appears, respondent No.1 died. The respondents-plaintiffs, to further support their possession, have produced documents, namely receipt of property tax dated 22.07.2008, issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle, for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009, demand notice dated 03.02.2003, issued by Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, demanding water cess and service charges, for the period from December, 2002 to January, 2003 and electricity bill dated 05.07.2006 for the month of June, 2006. All these receipts/bills are issued in the name of Sri. P.V.L. Narasimha Rao, brother of petitioner-defendant and husband of respondent No.1-plaintiff. These receipts/bills clearly go to show that the respondents-defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Though the petitioner-defendant contends that except the above property tax receipt/water/electricity bills, there is no material placed by the respondents-plaintiffs to establish that the husband of respondent No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property and that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession, the fact remains, the respondents-plaintiffs filed third party affidavits of their neighbourers/Colony President etc., to establish that they are in possession of the said property. Though the petitioner-defendant also produced third party affidavits to show that he is residing in the suit schedule property, but considering the fact that the respondents-plaintiffs produced property tax receipt/water/ electricity bills, no credence can be placed on the third party affidavits filed by the petitioner-defendant. Though the petitioner-defendant produced registered sale deed dated 13.12.1984 (marked by the respondents-plaintiffs as Ex.P1) to show that the suit schedule property is registered in his name, and though he contended that he being the owner of the suit schedule property, alone is collecting the rents from the tenants, the fact remains, it is the case of the respondents-plaintiffs, that the husband of respondent No.1 had inducted the tenants in the house, and as he seriously fell ill in 2006, they shifted to another house at Chintal, and taking advantage of their absence, the petitioner-defendant is forcibly collecting rents from the tenants and that also threatened the respondents-plaintiffs to dispossess them. The act of the petitioner-defendant in threatening the respondents-plaintiffs, is the cause of action for the respondents-plaintiffs to file suit for injunction. Taking into consideration the contents and nature of documents filed by the respondents- plaintiffs, as discussed above, the trial Court felt that the respondents-plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in their favour and granted interim injunction, which the appellate Court refused to interfere, and rightly so. Therefore, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: December, 2009. KSR