THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A.Nos.399 and 599 of 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Since these two appeals arise out of the very same common order, dated 15.02.2008, passed by IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.Nos.746 and 1481 of 2007 in O.S.No.123 of 2007, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The appellant/plaintiff, being represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder, filed the above suit for permanent injunction against 10 defendants restraining them, their men and agents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, he filed I.A.No.746 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction. According to the plaintiff, he being the elder son of the erstwhile Maharaja of Vizianagaram namely late Sri P.V.G.Raju, succeeded the impartible estate of entire Vizianagaram as an absolute owner. The suit schedule property, which is in an extent of Acs.29.59 cents, is part and parcel of the said estate and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The names of the ancestors of the plaintiff were mutated in the relevant village records. The suit schedule property is being ensjoyed by the plaintiff by cultivating the same through the ryots. Since the plaintiff indulged in several philanthropic and other political activities, he could not obtain pattadar pass books and title deeds in his name. Recently, he applied for the same in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam and they are yet to be issued. Due to spurt in the prices of real estate, several unscrupulous elements, including the defendants, have formulated a strategy of occupying vacant lands by defeating the rights of the lawful owners. The defendants, without any manner of right whatsoever, appear to have created some sham and nominal documents in the name of third parties. The said persons without disclosing their names got published a notice on 09.04.2007 in Eenadu daily newspaper stating that they intended to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendants and called for objections for the alleged sale. The defendants used to visit the suit schedule property with some people proclaiming that they have right over the said property and they tried to tress pass into the same. Later, on 18.04.2007, 21.04.2007 and 22.04.2007, when the defendants again attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property along with their henchmen, the plaintiff resisted the said attempt with the assistance of the villagers. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the above suit along with I.A.No.746 of 2007 to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The lower Court, on 26.04.2007, while ordering notices to the defendants, granted ex parte ad-interim injunction. On receiving the suit notice, the first defendant filed a counter denying the material allegations. She also filed I.A.No.1481 of 2007 in O.S.No.123 of 2007 stating that she is the absolute owner of the land in an extent of Acs.6.32½ cents, which is part of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one Ganta Satyavathi of Visakhapatnam for an extent of Acs.5.19½ cents and one Buddaraju Ramadevi of Visakhapatnam for an extent of Acs.1.13 cents under two registered sale deeds dated 26.07.1999 vide Document Nos.1985/99 and 1968/99 respectively registered with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Bheemunipatnam; that the said land is a dry land with Mango and Cashew topes situated in Survey Nos.49/1, 49/2, 49/3 and 49/4 of Nidigattu Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal; that immediately after the purchase, she had taken possession of the said land from her vendors and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property without any hindrance; that she constructed a house for watchman, dug a bore well for irrigation of the topes, obtained an electrical consumer connection bearing Meter No.1000 and also paying electricity consumption charges to the TRANSCO; that her vendors purchased the said petition schedule land from various vendors viz., Boyi Appanna, Buddaraju Rama Devi, Mudapaka Varahalu, Bora Rama Krishna, Mudapaka Appanna, Mudapaka Tata Rao, Mudapaka Narishimhulu, Mudapaka Rajulu, Kasula Bangarayya, Bora Appalanaidu and Bobbili Sanyasi Rao, under several registered sale deeds for valuable considerations; that she filed all the original sale deeds in I.A.No.841 of 2007 in O.S.No.1123 of 2007; and that the Government have also issued title deed and pass book to her and the Adangal Pahani is also in her name, which reflects her possession over the suit schedule property. While so, all of a sudden on 05.08.2007, when the plaintiff along with others came to the schedule land, trespassed into the land, employed bulldozer, tractor and lorries and started leveling the agricultural lands by damaging the trees and other standing crops, her watchman and also neighbouring owners interfered and warned them. Then the plaintiff and his men left the petition schedule property proclaiming that they will come within a short period with more men and material to occupy and lay the plots. Apprehending danger, she filed O.S.No.278 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and obtained injunction against the plaintiff in I.A.No.716 of 2007 in O.S.No.278 of 2007 for an extent of Acs.1.13 cents of land, as it was purchased under a separate document. In the said suit, the plaintiff has already engaged an advocate and the same is pending. She further stated that again on 25.09.2007, when the plaintiff and his henchmen again came to the schedule property along with bulldozer and lorries and tried to damage and change the change the character of her land threatening the watchman, who obstructed them, with dire consequences, she lodged a written complaint to the Police, Bheemunipatnam. At that time, the plaintiff showed the ex parte injunction order passed by the Court below, which was in existence till 07.06.2007 only, and thereafter, it was not extended. But, on filing C.R.P.No.4506 of 2007 by the plaintiff before this Court, the ex parte ad interim injunction order was extended. Hence, she sought for injunction in her favour restraining the plaintiff, his men and agents from wasting, damaging, alienating and changing the agricultural character of the petition schedule land, which is part of the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. Apart from filing I.A.No.1481 of 2007, she also filed I.A.Nos.1723 and 1713 of 2007 to set aside the ex parte ad-interim injunction passed in I.A.No.746 of 2007 in O.S.No.123 of 2007; and to grant police aid by directing the Station House Officer of Bheemunipatnam Police Station to protect her possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property respectively. To prove their case, though none was examined on behalf of either side, Exs.P.1 to P.37 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.19 were marked on behalf of the defendants. The Court below, considering the entire material available on record, by the impugned common order, dated 15.02.2008, dismissed I.A.No.746 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff and in view of dismissal of the said I.A., I.A.No.1723 of 2007 was closed as infructuous. It allowed I.A.No.1481 of 2007 granting interim injunction restraining the plaintiff, his men, agents and relatives from wasting, damaging, alienating and changing the agricultural character of the petition schedule lands, which are part of the petition schedule property, till the disposal of the suit. Since there is no need to order police aid in favour of the first defendant, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.1713 of 2007 granting liberty to her to move any such application in future, if the situation so demands. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.746 of 2007 and allowing I.A.No.1481 of 2007 in O.S.No.123 of 2007 granting injunction in favour of the first defendant, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.Nos.399 and 599 of 2008 respectively. This Court, during the summer vacation of 2008 i.e., on 28.05.2008, in C.M.A.M.P.No.1031 of 2008 in C.M.A.No.399 of 2008 granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff for a period of six weeks, against which, the respondents/defendants filed C.M.A.M.P.No.1206 of 2008 seeking vacation of the said interim order. On 07.07.2008, the learned counsel for the vacate stay petitioners sought adjournment, and hence, the matter was adjourned and the interim order granted on 28.05.2008 was extended till the disposal of C.M.A.M.P.No.1206 of 2008. On 22.07.2008, both the counsel represented that the arguments in the vacate stay petition and the main appeal are one and the same and they would argue the main appeal itself. That is how, the matters were posted for final hearing on 31.07.2008. Since 31.07.2008, the matters had underwent 35 adjournments at the request of either of the parties. On 05.10.2009, this Court has not acceded the request of the learned counsel to adjourn the mater and insisted them to argue the appeals, but however, finally adjourned the matter to 12.10.2009. On 12.10.2009, when the matter was called, none appeared for the appellant/plaintiff and therefore, the matter was adjourned to today, which shows the attitude of the learned counsel for the appellant in prolonging the matters having obtained an injunction order. We have heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contends that the Interlocutory Applications filed by the first defendant with the reliefs aforementioned clearly disclose that she is not in possession of the property and it is the plaintiff, who is in possession of the same. He also contended that pattadar pass books were issued in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.P.19, but the same were cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer suo-motto. Hence, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.22035 of 2007 and this Court by order, dated 12.10.2007, suspended the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. He further contended that since the plaintiff’s ancestors were the owners of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff succeeded the impartible estate; that the first defendant is only claiming Acs.6.32½ cents in Survey Nos.49/1, 49/2, 49/3 and 49/4 situated in Nidigattu Village, out of Acs.29.59 cents; that when the first defendant failed to establish the title to the suit schedule property and also failed to establish that she purchased the same from lawful owners, she is not entitled to any injunction; and that since the injunction granted by this Court is in operation since 1 ½ year i.e., 28.05.2008, the Court below can be directed to dispose of the suit, within a time frame. On the other hand, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that admittedly, in the declaration filed by the plaintiff under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 before the Land Reforms Tribunal, he has not shown the lands held by him as on the date of issuance of final declaration; that the omission of the suit schedule land in S.No.49 in the declaration of the plaintiff supports the version of the first defendant that the plaintiff is not in possession and that she is in possession of the property purchased by her; that the vendors of the first defendant were in possession of the same; that the sale deeds under Exs.R.1 and R.2 are of the year 1999 and since 1999 she was in possession of the property, which fact was also reflected in the revenue records; and that when the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie possession and title to the suit schedule property, he is not entitled to any injunction. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for or not? It is not in dispute that the erstwhile Maharaja of Vizianagaram namely Sri P.V.G.Raju died leaving behind the heirs other than the plaintiff. The Court below found that the name of the plaintiff has not been entered in the village accounts in Column No.13 and such evidence has not been produced to prove the possession, except producing Ex.P.19- passbooks and title deeds issued by the then Tahasildar, Bheemunipatnam in favour of the plaintiff on 21.04.2007 and 11.05.2007 respectively for several properties including the land in Survey Nos.49/1 to 4. On the protest made by the local people, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam took the matter suo-motu and after conducting enquiry suspended the operation of Ex.P.19 by virtue of his order under Ex.P.18. Immediately thereafter the suit was filed on 25.04.2007. This Court suspended the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Ex.P.15, which gives life to the document under Ex.P.19. Further, the first defendant was also given title deed under Ex.R.19 by the competent revenue authority for the very same land in R.S.No.49/1 to 4, which has not been challenged so far. The first defendant also filed revenue record under Ex.R.20 in relation to the land in S.No.49 to an extent of Acs.5.20 cents, which relates to Fasli year 1401, whereas the document under Ex.P.1 relates to Fasli year 1413. Further, the declaration given by the plaintiff under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 gains significance. Under Ex.R.29-declaration, the land in S.Nos.49/1 to 4 has not been shown to be held by him at the relevant date. The title deeds of the first defendant under Exs.R.1 to R.3 are not of recent creation. Ex.R.17-electricity consumption charges, Ex.R.20-No.3 adangal of Nidigattu Village, Ex.R.30-proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, and Ex.R.31-copy of enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer clearly show that prima facie the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, in Ex.R.32- judgment of the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, it was not computed to the holding of the plaintiff, which clearly discloses that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property since from 1975 on wards. In view of the same, the lower Court rightly allowed I.A.No.1481 of 2007 filed by the first defendant and the dismissal of I.A.No.746 of 2007 is only to the extent of Acs.6.13 ½ cents of land. We, accordingly dismiss C.M.A.No.599 of 2008 confirming the grant of injunction in I.A.No.1481 of 2007. Since the injunction granted by this Court on 28.05.2008 is confined only to remaining extent of land excluding the land covered by I.A.No.1481 of 2007, we partly allow C.M.A.No.399 of 2008. The Court below is directed to dispose of both suits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, expeditiously, preferably by the end of April, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 15.10.2009 va