HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2672 pf 2010. DATED 6th August, 2010. BETWEEN. Nagam Mohan Reddy ….Petitioners and Nagam Prameela ..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2672 of 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed in C.M.A.No. 2 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed in I.A.No. 148 of 2009 in O.S.No. 53 of 2009 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. The background facts, in a nutshell, leading to ﬁling of this revision are: the petitioner and respondent herein are husband and wife. The wife ﬁled O.S.No. 53 of 2009 seeking injunction against the husband restraining him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She also moved I.A.No. No. 148 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction. The husband ﬁled counter resisting the application. The husband while admitting the execution of the sale deed in favour of the wife disputed of his delivering the possession to the wife. According to him, the sale deed is sham and nominal document. Before the trial Court, the plaintiﬀ ﬁled four documents; whereas the defendant ﬁled three documents. The trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiﬀ did not ﬁle any document as proof of her possession over the suit schedule property. For better appreciation, I may refer Paragraph 13 of the order of the trial Court in the said I.A., which reads as follows: “ As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Exs.R.1 and R.2, certiﬁcate and notice, indicate that the respondent is in possession of the petition schedule property. The petitioner having pleaded that she is in possession of the petition schedule property, from the date of purchase, did not choose to ﬁle any document, proving her alleged possession over it, since 2002. In view of the above discussion and since it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, and since it is not their plea that both of them are residing separately, this court is of the opinion that unless a full ﬂedged trial is held, in the main suit, the real facts with regard to the possession of the petition schedule property would not come out. The petitioner, failed to prove her prima-facie possession over the petition schedule property as on the date of ﬁling of the suit and in view of the above discussion, balance of convenience is found in favour of the respondent.” Aggrieved over the said order passed in I.A.No. 148 of 2009 in O.S.No. 53 of 2009, the wife ﬁled CMA.No. 2 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, at Bhongir. The learned Senior Civil Judge, at Bhongir, having taken note of the registered sale deed which has been marked as Ex.P.3 came to conclusion that the appellant- wife is in occupation of the suit schedule house and thereby allowed the CMA setting aside the order dated 12.11.2009 passed in I.A.No. 148 of 2009 in O.S.No. 53 of 2009 and consequently granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-wife. Paragraph 9 of the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in the CMA reads as follows: “ It is the case of the plaintiﬀ that she is the owner and possessor of the schedule property purchased from the defendant under a registered document and the defendant who contacted second marriage living with his bigamous wife and trying to interfere into her possession of the schedule property. The case of the respondent is that, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiﬀ is a nominal document and no possession was delivered and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the petition. The plaintiﬀ has ﬁled Exs.P.1 to P.4 to support his case. Similarly the respondents ﬁled Exs.R.1 to R.3 on his behalf. Among all the documents, the crucial document is registered slae deed dated 17.8.2002 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiﬀ. The parties to the suit are wife, and husband and the scheldule property was purchased from the defendant for consideration. The contents of the documents are binding on the parties. The certiﬁcates issued by Panchayat Secretary and Sarpanch are quite contradictory to each other. The only document that can be taken into consideration at this stage, the registered document under Ex.P.3 and if it is accepted, it is clear that the possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiﬀ under the document and there is no explanation when the plaintiﬀ re-delivered the possession of the plaintiﬀ to the defendant. The defendant who is the party to the document cannot go beyond the recitals of the document and the sale deed is binding against the defendant as an admission. The photograph also goes to show that, the respondent is residing therein. If the respondent got the photographs taken while moving in the schedule property it does not amount to legal possession over the plaint schedule property and therefore he cannot obstruct the plaintiﬀ in enjoying the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiﬀ has established her peaceful possession and enjoyment in the schedule property on the date of ﬁling of the suit and accordingly she is entitled to ask for temporary injunction in her favour. The learned trial judge ignored Ex.P.3 registered sale deed and considered the other certiﬁcates issued by Sarpanch, which is not a crucial document in view of the existence of registered document. Therefore, the order in question is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the above point is answered. More over the plaintiff being woman cannot resist the illegal acts of the defendant.” Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower appellate Court is not justiﬁed in upsetting the well reasoned order of the trial Court. A further submission has been made by the learned Counsel that the lower appellate Court has not taken into consideration the possession of the husband over the plaint schedule property. The learned Counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the registered sale deed which has been marked as Ex.P.3 stands in the name of the respondent- wife and recitals therein are very clear that possession has been delivered to the respondent-wife as on the date of executing the sale deed. The appellant-husband executed Ex.P.3 registered sale deed in favour of the wife. The recitals in Ex.P.3 clearly indicate that possession has been delivered to the purchaser-wife as on the date of the sale deed. By virtue of the sale deed (Ex.P.3) the wife became the owner of the suit schedule property. Unless and until the sale deed is set aside, she is the title holder of the suit schedule property. The lower appellate Court has assigned valid reasons in setting aside the order of the trial Court and granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-wife. I do not see any irregularity or illegality warranting interference with the order under revision in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY DATED 6th August, 2010. Msnr.