IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2438 of 2010 Between: Smt. Zakeera Begum and others .. Petitioners AND Azam Muslehuddin and others .. Respondents ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in C.M.A. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Medak, dated 22-01-2010 reversing the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur in I.A. No.224 of 2008 in O.S. No.83 of 2008, dated 10-08-2009 and granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. O.S. No.83 of 2008 was filed for declaration of title and a consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property comprising Ac.2-03 guntas in S.No.138/E of Naguldevpally village. The plaintiffs claimed that the share of Maqdoom Moinuddin to an extent of 2-04 guntas was sold under a registered sale deed, dated 06-12-1969 to N. Narayana and he also filed a declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act showing the land to have been sold to Narayana. The same was accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal and the two daughters of another brother of Maqdoom Moinuddin, Sri Kursheed Moinuddin, sold their share of Ac.2-03 guntas to the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 02-05-2006, while the third brother retained the land for himself, now being enjoyed by his legal heirs. The plaintiffs claimed that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land since purchase, with which the defendants are trying to interfere, forcing them to file the suit and also I.A. No.224 of 2008 for a temporary injunction. The defendants resisted the request for temporary injunction claiming that the decision in I.A. No.711 of 2006 in O.S. No.186 of 2006 operates as res judicata in the present suit and O.S. Nos.188 of 2006 and 189 of 2006 filed by defendants 1, 2 and 4 for permanent injunction respectively are pending. The defendants already approached the Revenue Divisional Officer for rectification of record and an ex parte order was passed by him, which is the subject of the appeal before the Joint Collector. The dispute is also the subject of a private complaint in C.C. No.258 of 2008 and hence, the defendants sought for rejection of the request of the plaintiffs claiming that they got their respective lands also by purchase in 1957 and subsequently. The trial Court passed an order on contest on 10-08-2009 dismissing the petition for interim injunction without costs after considering Exs.P.1 to P.36 and R.1 to R.37 produced during the enquiry. The trial Court primarily opined that the plaintiffs failed to mutate their names in the revenue records after purchase and also failed to produce any document to show that their vendors were in possession of the suit property. The trial Court also observed that the sale deed of the plaintiffs or their link documents were also not filed, though the defendants also were not able to show their possession of the suit property. The failure of the plaintiffs to establish prima facie case and consequential balance of convenience in their favour resulted in the refusal of the interim relief, the absence of which was not shown to cause any irreparable loss. In the appeal against the said order, the appellate Court passed the impugned order after receiving Exs.P.37 to P.66 and R.38 to R.57 as additional evidence in the appeal. The appellate Court exhaustively considered the rival contentions and the documents and noted that the original ownership of the subject property with the three brothers was not in dispute and the plaintiffs filed pattedar passbooks and title deeds in the names of their vendors as well as the documents relating to the land ceiling declaration of the predecessors-in-title. While comparing them, the appellate Court observed that the case of the respondents reflected through their documents, disclosed contradictions in the revenue records and absence of proof of validation of the sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 and 6. The appellate Court also further noted that both sides highlighted the previous litigation between the parties and observed that any silence on the part of the plaintiffs in the earlier litigation cannot be a ground to dismiss the appeal. The appellate Court also observed with reference to the question of possession that in an injunction petition, it is the duty of the petitioners to prove their possession and the pattedar passbooks issued in the names of the plaintiffs, which followed the contested proceedings before the revenue authorities at various levels, support their claim. The case of the respondents with reference to their documents was considered to be entitling them to agitate their rights before a civil Court, but not sufficient to discredit the plaintiffs’ version. When the purchase and possession of the property were probablised by the documents of the plaintiffs, in comparison with the documents of the respondents/defendants, the appellate Court opined that the possession of the plaintiffs should be protected pending disposal of the suit. It is against the said conclusion that the present revision is directed with the defendants contending that the plaintiffs failed to establish any of the essential ingredients for grant of a temporary injunction, more so in view of the dispute about the identity of the property. The order, dated 22-01-2010 continued to be in force in the absence of any interim order to the contrary pending this revision petition. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the respondents are heard at length. The only point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunction pending the suit ? Point: Even the trial Court in its order dated 10-08-2009 had not doubted the genuineness of Exs.P.1 to P.36 relied on by the plaintiffs and also accepted that Exs.P.33 to P.36 pahanies reveal the names of the plaintiffs as owners in S.No.138/E1 to S.No.138/E4. The absence of the names of the vendors of the plaintiffs was the cause for the trial Court not to accept the case of the plaintiffs, apart from the non-filing of their sale deed and the absence of mutation of their names. The trial Court itself also had stated with reference to Exs.R.1 to R.37 for the defendants that no document was filed to show that the defendants were together in possession of the plaint schedule property. Though no negative inferences can be drawn from such a circumstance, the fact remains that the circumstances disclosed by the documents of the plaintiffs were opined even by the trial Court to be not contradicted by the documents for the defendants. When the matter came up for consideration in appeal, the pattedar passbooks, the title deeds, copies of the registered sale deeds, copies of the proceedings of earlier litigation and the proceedings before the revenue authorities were pressed into service by the plaintiffs, in answer to which the defendants also relied on copies of the proceedings before the revenue authorities. The appellate Court after extensively extracting the rival contentions had dealt with the issue in depth and found that the observation that the documents did not refer to the name of the vendor of the plaintiffs, was not correct and the discrepancies referred to by the trial Court were also explained to be minor and insignificant by the appellate Court. The conclusions of the appellate Court, based on the earlier proceedings before the revenue authorities and in the land ceiling matters and in the civil disputes before the Courts, were based on convincing reasons without the need for any replication herein. Primarily when even the trial Court could not assign any convincing reasons for rejecting the entries in Exs.P.33 to P.36 and when the finding of the trial Court that the defendants were unable to, prima facie, probablise their possession, was not the subject of any challenge by the defendants, the conclusions of the appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs do not appear susceptible to any interference. The prima facie adjudication of the questions in controversy to find out the presence or absence of the essential ingredients for grant or refusal of an interim injunctive relief need not be subjected to any further deep probe in the restricted exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, when the appellate judgment does not appear to be devoid of sound reasons or factual basis arising out of the broad human probabilities disclosed by the documentary evidence on record and therefore, the order need not be interfered with. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there was no order of injunction in force since the filing of the suit till the order in the appeal and therefore, the parties can be directed to maintain status quo and that the trial Court can be requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Sri K.K. Waghray opposes the request for any variance in the order of interim injunction granted by the appellate Court though he has no objection for early disposal of the suit. A bald order of status quo without anything further may not be in the interests of justice, when there is a positive finding of the appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs on strong documentary evidence for sound reasons, while the trial Court can be requested to expeditiously dispose of the suit to settle the dispute once and for all. Therefore, while the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity to both parties, at any rate not later than six months from the date of communication of the order of this Court. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2010 Svv