THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4171 of 2011 November 11, 2011 Between: Kadali Subbarao, S/o.Ramamurthy And another … Petitioners AND Dangeti Janakiramayya, S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4171 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 27.7.2011 in CMA No.1 of 2011 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram whereby and whereunder the order dated 21.1.2011 in I.A.No.473 of 2010 in O.S.No.78 of 2010 passed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram dismissing the I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was confirmed. The petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 6 (the respondents 1 to 6 herein). They also filed interlocutory application for ad interim injunction pending the suit. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit accompanying the injunction application, they alleged as follows. The suit schedule agricultural land admeasuring Acs.0.65 situated at Thaneanka village is owned by Smt.Koppisetti Mangayamma; on 29.5.2009 the petitioners obtained lease of the land where there are coconut trees and also banana garden; and on 15.5.2010 they obtained registered lease deed from the landlady and are in possession of the same. The respondents 1 to 6, who are closely related, committed theft of coconuts and started proclaiming that they would not allow the petitioners to cultivate the land and that they will take forcible possession. The second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the application. He alleged as follows. Dangeti Venkata Satyanarayana (father of Mangayamma) filed two suits being O.S. No.53 of 1999 against sons and daughter, and O.S.No.54 of 1999 against tenants of Mangayamma, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram for eviction and possession of the land. During the pendency of the suits, Venkata Satyanarayana executed registered settlement deed dated 15.11.1999 giving the property to Mangayamma. In the suit being O.S.No.53 of 1999 there was compromise before the Lok Adalat and awards were passed. As per the award in the suits, the respondents 1 and 2 would inherit the suit schedule property after death of their father and the two daughters of Venkata Satyanarayana, namely, Mangayamma and Mani Kumari would be given Rs.50,000/- each in lieu of a share in the suit schedule land. When the Lok Adalat award was not acted upon, the respondents filed O.S. No.47 of 2009 for injunction. They also averred that in view of the awards of Lok Adalat the settlement deed executed by the father in favour of the petitioners’ lessor was not acted upon and, therefore, she had no right to lease out the property to the petitioners. They also alleged that after the Lok Adalat award the defendants took possession of the suit schedule land and are enjoying the same. They, however, filed an affidavit on 07.1.2010 seeking permission to withdraw the suit so as to give effect to the awards of the Lok Adalat. Before the trial Court, with the consent, marked Ex.P1 to P7 for the petitioners and Exs.R1 to R7 for the respondents. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the registered settlement deed dated 15.11.1999; Exs.R1 and R2 are the awards of Lok Adalat; and Exs.R6 and R7 are the separate registered settlement deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 3 to 5. Considering this evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the registered documents based on which the parties have set up rival claims for possession, it is not possible to decide the issue at the interlocutory stage and the matter has to go to trial. The application was accordingly dismissed. In the petitioners’ miscellaneous appeal being CMA No.1 of 2011 the learned appellate Judge relied on Exs.R1 and R2 and came to the conclusion that Koppisetti Mangayamma having entered into compromise, undertook not to enforce Ex.P1 settlement deed and, therefore, she could not have leased out the property to the petitioners. An observation was also made that Ex.P3 rental receipt dated 12.4.2010 is brought up document and when the landlady gave up her right and title under Ex.P1, the petitioners cannot claim possession of the suit schedule land. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even according to the defendants the awards of the Lok Adalat were not acted upon and, therefore, Mangayamma continued to enjoy the property and shall have every authority to lease out the suit schedule land. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents would submit that Mangayamma was a party to the suits filed by the father, she also appeared before the Lok Adalat and entered into compromise under Exs.R1 and R2 awards and thereafter she gave up her rights under Ex.P1. She has been setting up one third party after another to deprive the defendants from the suit schedule land and to have a wrongful gain. The petitioners’ possession was not proved and the averment made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the possession was taken by them pursuant to Lok Adalat awards remained uncontroverted. It is well settled that in respect of orders passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in the CMA, ordinarily the High Court would not interfere in the matters. The grant of ad interim injunction pending the suit is discretionary. The discretion has to be exercised by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court keeping in view the settled principles that the person seeking injunction must show prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship. In the case on hand, both the parties are relying on the registered documents. In comparison with Exs.R1 and R2 which are the awards passed by the Lok Adalat, Ex.P1 which is relied on by the petitioners is of lesser evidentiary value. Even as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 an award passed by the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties and can be executed as a decree. Ignoring Exs.R1 and R2 a finding that the petitioners proved their possession, cannot be recorded. Curiously when the petitioners are claiming lease through Mangayamma she was not made party. This itself would belie the case of the petitioners. After perusing the orders passed by the Courts below this Court is convinced that there are no reasons to interference with the impugned order passed by the Court below. Both the Courts below exercised sound discretion. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) November , 2011 YS