THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 78 of 2011 Judgment: The appellants, who are two in number, filed the suit O.S. No.50 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar, for declaration of title in respect of an extent of Ac. 1.01 guntas in Sy. No. 786, Gadwal Town, Mahabubnagar. Along with the suit, they filed the present application in I.A. No. 193 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., praying to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same. The Court below by order dated 19.01.2011 dismissed the I.A. holding that the appellants have no property, much less are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and dismissed the I.A. Questioning the said order, the appellants filed the present C.M.A. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit filed by the appellants is one for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. And even though the appellants produced material, including revenue record, to show that they have title to the suit schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same, the Court below without considering the same and, even before trial is conducted, committed an error in holding that the appellants have no property and that they are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Court below by recording such findings at the interlocutory stage, has pre-judged the whole issue involved in the suit, which would become infructuous. He thus prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the C.M.A. be allowed and temporary injunction be granted as prayed for by the appellants in the present application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 contended that as the material produced by the parties on record showed that the husband of appellant No.1, namely Buchanna had already sold the land and the rest of the land was covered by road, the Court below recorded prima facie finding that the appellants have no land and that they are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the order under appeal and prayed that the C.M.A. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. The husband of appellant No.1, namely Wadde Buchanna, purchased an extent of Acs. 2.25 guntas of land in Sy. No.786, Gadwal Town under registered sale deed dated 09.06.1977. Out of the said land, during the lifetime of Wadde Buchanna, an extent of Acs. 1.84 cents of land was acquired by the Government for purpose of construction of residential complex, is not in dispute. Thereafter, the appellants state that the balance land was divided in between Wadde Buchanna, the husband of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2, Wadde Buchanna taking an extent of Ac. 0.21 guntas, while his brother namely appellant No.2 taking an extent of Ac. 0.20 guntas of land. The appellants though claimed that they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents of lands, and that the revenue record also reflected the same, the Court below prima facie, found that they did not mention the boundaries of their respective lands. They did not state as to which side portion of the land each of them are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and that the sketch filed by them is also silent with regard to the boundaries. The Court below held that it is the bounden duty of the appellants, who are claiming injunction, in respect of their respective plots, to state as to which portion of the total land of Ac1.01 guntas, is in their respective possession and enjoyment, and that the appellants failed to do so, by pleading and placing material to that effect. No doubt, Buchanna purchased an extent of Acs. 2.35 guntas of land, but the Court below, prima facie found that under Ex. R9-sale deed dated 24.03.1982, Buchanna, husband of appellant No.1, had alienated an extent of Ac. 0.22 guntas, to S. Sridhar and others. And out of the remaining extent of Acs.2.13 guntas, an extent of Acs. 1.34 guntas was acquired by the Government, as evident from the award. Thus leaving balance of Ac. 0.19 guntas in the possession and enjoyment of Buchanna. Thus, the Court below found that the question of the appellants being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in an extent of Acs. 1.01 guntas of land does not arise. Though the appellants filed Exs. P1 to P22, including revenue record to show that their names were mutated in the revenue record, the Court below held that entries in the revenue record do not confer any title. Considering Ex. A9- registered sale deed, and other material placed by the respondents, and the fact that the land is no more agricultural and has been laid into plots, the Court below came to the conclusion that the appellants prima facie, cannot be said to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, justifying it to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. Since the appellants failed to make out any prima facie case, the Court below refused to grant temporary injunction. The findings recorded by the Court below to the effect that the appellants have no land and the question of they being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property being prima facie findings, based on the material placed before the Court, particularly Ex. R9, and merely for the purpose of grant of temporary injunction, it cannot be said that the Court below has pre-judged the issues involved in the suit and the findings recorded by it would frustrate the suit. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously on its own merits, based on the evidence to be let in by the parties, without being uninfluenced by the observations made either by it in the order under appeal or by this Court in this order. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Dated: 12th August, 2011 KSR