IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.685 OF 2009 Between: Dr.Pathikonda Muddappa …Petitioner A n d M.Shivappa …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.685 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.07.2008 in C.M.A.No.21 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, was allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.02.2007 in I.A.No.254 of 2006 in O.S.No.102 of 2006, whereunder the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, for temporary injunction, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. According to the plaintiff, the suit land originally belonged to one Parvathamma and that the defendant is the second son of Parvathamma and the suit land was leased out to plaintiff and subsequently in 1985 Parvathamma sold the land to the plaintiff orally for a consideration of Rs.35,000/- and ever since, the plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as the absolute owner. Subsequently, Parvathamma died in 1991. While so, the defendant filed a suit O.S.No.15 of 1998 against his brother Amarnath and others for partition before the District Court, Chittoor impleading the plaintiff herein as D-6 in that suit and showing the suit lands as items 1, 2 and 7 in plaint ‘A’ schedule in O.S.No.15 of 1998. The plaintiff alleges that about a month prior to filing of the suit, the defendant tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff came to know that defendant and his brother Amarnath filed a compromise petition before the Lok Adalath, Chittoor on 07.04.2005 and an award was passed and in pursuance of the compromise, the suit was ‘not pressed’ against the plaintiff herein and others. The plaintiff contends that the alleged compromise between the defendant and his brother is collusive and is not binding on him. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and injunction. 4. The defendant filed written statement denying the lease of the land by his mother in favour of the plaintiff and also denying the oral sale of the suit land by his mother in favour of the plaintiff in 1985 and contending that whenever the land was sold by Parvathamma, it was only by way of sale deed and she never sold any land under oral sale. The defendant further contends that as per the Lok Adalath award dated 07.04.2005 in O.S.No.15 of 1998, the defendant became entitled for the plaint schedule lands and other lands and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner thereof and the plaintiff who is none else than the maternal uncle of defendant filed the suit with oblique motive after fraudulently getting his name entered in No.2 account for faslies 1414 and 1415 as enjoyer. 5. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.254 of 2006 for a temporary injunction. The petitioner/defendant opposed the same by filing counter. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapelle, by order dated 22.02.2007, dismissed the said application, holding that the plaintiff has not established any prima facie case in his favour nor balance of convenience. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge, Madanepalle, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court and consequently granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 6. During enquiry before the trial Court, Exs.A-1 to A- 3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 7. The plaintiff claims that originally he has taken the suit land on lease from defendant’s mother Parvathamma and subsequently in 1985 he purchased the same from Parvathamma under oral sale for Rs.35,000/- and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as the absolute owner thereof. The defendant denies the lease and also the oral sale and contends that in pursuance of the award Ex.A-2, same as Ex.B-6, of the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.15 of 1998, a partition suit was filed him and his brother and others. The suit land along with other lands fell to his share and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In support of his claim of possession, the plaintiff seeks to rely upon Ex.A-3 true copy of No.3 adangal for falsies 1414 and 1415, whereas the defendant bases his claim on Ex.B-1 10(1) account for falsies 1402 to 1410 account, Ex.B-2 No.2 account, Ex.B-3 pattadar passbook and Ex.B-7 cist receipt. The defendant would further contend that even in Ex.A-3, the sole document filed by the plaintiff in proof of his claim of possession, the name of the defendant is noted as pattadar, whereas Exs.B-1 to B-3 and B-7 would establish the defendant’s claim of ownership and also possession since long prior to filing of the suit. The defendant would further contend that the alienation by Parvathamma is only by way of registered sale deeds and the claim of plaintiff based on oral sale, cannot be countenanced at all. The plaintiff would contend that in para 17 of the plaint Ex.A-1 filed by the defendant herein in O.S.No.15 of 1998, the defendant has specifically pleaded that his mother Parvathamma whenever in need of funds was approaching the tenants and receiving sale consideration from them and used to allow them to enjoy the land treating the same as their own without executing any sale deeds in tune with the practice in vogue in some of the families of the village and the persons who paid consideration to Parvathamma and in possession of those lands purchased by them are impleaded as D-5 to D-9 in the suit and the plaintiff herein was one such defendant impleaded as D-6 in the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, places strong reliance on the above averment in the plaint filed by defendant herein in O.S.No.15 of 1998 and contends that the same operates as an admission on the part of the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit land as a purchaser and the defendant cannot be permitted to plead contra. The plaintiff would further contend that as seen from the copy of the award the suit in O.S.No.15 of 1998 against D-4 to D-9 therein, including the plaintiff herein, was dismissed as ‘not pressed’ and, therefore, the plaintiff herein not being a party to the award passed by the Lok Adalath in O.S.No.15 of 1998, the said award and terms thereof are not binding on the plaintiff. 8. It can, therefore, be seen that the various contentions raised by both sides in support of their claims of title and possession are matters to be considered and duly appreciated on the basis of evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. The documents sought to be relied upon by both parties would again fall for consideration along with the oral evidence during the course of trial. The suit is filed in the year 2006 and is ripe for trial. At this length of time about five years after filing of the suit, it is considered inappropriate to go into the merits of the case in the interlocutory stage, especially when the same aspects do arise for consideration in a greater detail in the course of trial. In the circumstances, it is considered that instead of deciding the matter on merits, it would be just and proper to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the suit is disposed of, status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the suit land shall be maintained by both parties. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th August, 2011 Lrkm