IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, C.R.P.No.2536 OF 2011 Between: Marella Venkatappaiah …Petitioner A n d Mundru Koteswara Rao …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2536 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.06.2011 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2011, on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge, Narsaraopet, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondent herein, was allowed, vacating the status quo order dated 08.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2011 in O.S.No.32 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet and dismissing the said application filed by the plaintiff for injunction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondent herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also filed I.A.No.121 of 2011 for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from making further constructions in the plaint schedule land of 69.73 sq. metres bearing D.Nos.111 and 112 at Gogulapadu village, pending disposal of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit site is the ancestral property of one A.Ratna Reddy and after his demise intestate, the suit site was sold by the wife and sons to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992 and ever since the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same by tethering cattle. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant was planning to create some documents in respect of the suit site for the purpose of his real estate business and, therefore, the plaintiff obtained the sale deed 28.01.2011 in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992. He further alleges that when the plaintiff was absent in the village, the defendant and his men tried to make constructions over the suit site in a highhanded manner. The plaintiff further pleaded that he has been ousted from possession of the suit site and hence he has filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 4. The petitioner/ defendant filed a counter opposing the grant of temporary injunction contending that the agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992 is fabricated with ante-date and the sale deed dated 28.01.2011 is nominal and collusive and not supported by consideration. According to the defendant, he purchased the suit site from Pavuluri Lakshmi Reddy under two registered sale deeds in 1996 and 2001 and the said Lakshmi Reddy purchased the same from Avula Anji Reddy, son of Ratna Reddy under the sale deed dated 09.06.1993 and that in order to defeat the rights of the defendant in the suit land, Anji Reddy along with his brother and mother brought into existence a collusive sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 28.01.2011, which is purported to have been executed in pursuance of the alleged agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992. He would contend that he has raised permanent constructions over the plaint schedule land in his own right and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since his purchase. 5. During the course of enquiry, Ex.P-1 sale deed dated 28.01.2011 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Exs.R-1 to R-15 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 6. By order dated 08.04.2011, the trial Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case on the strength of Ex.P-1 and directed both parties to maintain status quo over the schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2011 and the learned District Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of status quo granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the plaintiff. 7. It is to be noted that the suit is filed for declaration of tile and also for recovery of possession. Thus, admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession of the plaint schedule land by the date of filing of the suit. According to him, he was dispossessed highhandedly by the defendant prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiff bases his claim on Ex.P-1 a registered sale deed dated 28.01.2011 said to have been executed by the legal heirs of deceased Avula Ratna Reddy. According to plaintiff, he obtained an agreement of sale on 09.01.1992 from the legal heirs of Avula Ratna Reddy and in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, the registered sale deed dated 28.01.2011 was executed in his favour. The defendant would contend that the suit agreement of sale is non-existent and the sale deed dated 28.01.2011 is nominal and collusive brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the legal heirs of Ratna Reddy to defeat the rights of the defendant in the suit land. According to the defendant, the suit land was originally purchased by Lakshmi Reddy from Avula Anji Reddy, son of Ratna Reddy under a registered sale deed Ex.R-1 and the defendant in turn purchased the same from Lakshmi Reddy under two registered sale deeds Exs.R-2 and R-3 in 1996 and 2001 respectively and ever since he has been in possession of the same and that he raised permanent structures over the suit land. 8. Significantly, the alleged agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992 is not filed by the plaintiff to prove its existence either before the trial Court or the appellate Court. Admittedly, Ex.P-1 sale deed dated 28.01.2011 does not also make any reference to the agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992. Further, no reason or explanation is furnished by the plaintiff as to why a sale deed could not be executed for such a long time till 2011 in pursuance of the agreement which is said to have been executed as long back as in 1992. The plaintiff has not explained the circumstances which delayed the execution of the sale deed for over a long period of 19 years from the date of the alleged agreement. On the other hand, Exs.R-2 and R-3 sale deeds in favour of the defendant and Ex.R-1 prior sale deed in favour of defendant’s vendor would go to show that the defendant purchased the property even by 1996 and 2001. The plaintiff has not taken any steps for over 10 years even after execution of Ex.R-3, even though the defendant made certain permanent construction over the suit site. The defendant also filed Exs.R-10 to R-12, the house tax demand notices showing payment of the tax by the defendant and Exs.R-13 to 15, the certificates issued by the Secretary, Grampanchayat. As the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, he has to establish his claim over the suit property by adducing necessary evidence during the course of trial. When the plaintiff is seeking a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit, he has to show the existence of a prima facie case, which is sine quo non besides balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable loss in the absence of an injunction. The finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff established a prima facie case on the strength of Ex.P-1 was rightly set aside by the appellate Court, as the said document was obtained on the eve of filing of the suit and secondly Exs.R-1 to R-15 filed by the defendant showed the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the defendant. When the defendant has specifically denied as to the existence of agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992 and alleged that Ex.P-1 is a sham, nominal and collusive, the plaintiff ought to have filed the said agreement of sale dated 09.01.1992, but has not chosen to do so. When the said document is not referred to in Ex.P-1 sale deed, it is difficult to accept the claim of the plaintiff that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land from 1992 onwards. The plaintiff has not filed any other documents evidencing his alleged possession and enjoyment till his alleged dispossession. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property by the date of the suit and hence he sought the relief of recovery of possession also. 9. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has made out any prima facie case in his favour for grant of a temporary injunction from making further constructions in the suit land. The balance of convenience does not also lie in favour of the plaintiff, as he failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour. It cannot be said that in the absence of injunction, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss because in the event of his ultimate success in the suit he would certainly be entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property along with improvements made thereon by the defendant. On the other hand, grant of injunction restraining the defendant from making the constructions would only hamper the further construction work and the defendant would be put to serious loss and hardship as he is said to have already invested about Rs.6 lakhs in the construction of the ground floor and raising the first floor up to the roof level. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the learned District Judge setting aside the order of status quo granted by the trial Court and consequently dismissing the application for injunction, does not call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Status quo order granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011 Lrkm.