Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 383 (AP)

THUMMA BAL REDDY v. RAMASUGUNAKAR RAJU

2003-03-07

V.ESWARAIAH

body2003
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order, dated 9-9-2002, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal in C. M. A. No. 53 of 2001. The Petitioners are the Defendants and the Respondents are the Plaintiffs in o. S. No. 1597 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The Respondents-Plaintiffs filed the said O. S. No. 1597 of 2000 for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners-Defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land admeasuring 5 guntas i. e. 605 square yards which is surrounded by a compound wall with tin shed in Survey no. 481/c situated at Waddepalli village. In the said O. S. No. 1597 of 2000 the respondents-Plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 2760 of 2000 for interim injunction. The principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, by an order, dated 17-4-2001,dismissed the said I. A. No. 2760 of 2000. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents-Plaintiffs filed C. M. A. No. 53 of 2001 before the III Additional district Judge, Warangal. The III Additional District Judge, Warangal, by order, dated 9-9-2002, allowed the said C. M. A. No. 53 of 2001 setting aside the order, dated 17-4-2001, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in i. A. No. 2760 of 2000. Against that order, the Defendants filed this Civil revision Petition. ( 2 ) IT is case of the Respondents-Plaintiffs that the second Respondent-second plaintiff purchased the said land from its lawful owner on 10-2-1966 and 11-4-1980 under sale deeds in the name of the Respondents-Plaintiffs and the possession was delivered to them on the same day and ever since then they are in peaceful possession of the same. It is also the case of the respondents-Plaintiffs that the name of the first Respondent-first Plaintiff was recorded in the possessors column of the pahanis for the year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1986-87; that ryot pass book was also issued to them in the year 1980; that the said property became urban property and it was used as house plots; that the Respondents-Plaintiffs constructed a compound wall and raised a tin shed in that land in the year 1999; that the Petitioners-Defendants were attempting to interfere with their possession on the ground that the first petitioner-first Defendant is the owner of an extent of 469 square yards in survey Nos. 479/a, 480/a, 481/a (old Durvey No. 517/a) of Waddepalli village; that the first Petitioner-first Defendant kept his evil eye on the suit property and tried to disturb the possession of the Respondents-Plaintiffs and that, therefore, the Respondents-Plaintiffs filed the said I. A. No. 2760 of 2000 for temporary injunction. 479/a, 480/a, 481/a (old Durvey No. 517/a) of Waddepalli village; that the first Petitioner-first Defendant kept his evil eye on the suit property and tried to disturb the possession of the Respondents-Plaintiffs and that, therefore, the Respondents-Plaintiffs filed the said I. A. No. 2760 of 2000 for temporary injunction. ( 3 ) THE case of the Petitioners-Defendants is that the Respondents-Plaintiffs did not choose to specify as to what is the extent of land they (Respondents-Plaintiffs) purchasedunder the registered sale deeds, dated 10-2-1966 and 11-4-1980 and who are their vendors; that the second respondent-Second Plaintiff worked as Patwari (V. A. O.) of Hanamkonda Revenue mandal and presently working at Dharmasagar Mandal; that taking advantage of the position of the second Respondent-second Plaintiff, the respondents-Plaintiffs, in collusion with the Revenue authorities, got entered their names in the revenue records; that the alleged documents i. e. alleged sale deeds, are fabricated for the purpose of filing the suit; that the respondents-Plaintiffs have no right or title and they are not in possession; thatthe allegations that the Respondents-Plaintiffs constructed compound wall around the suit land and also raised a tin shed in the year 1999 and that the respondents-Plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners since the date of purchase, are false, baseless and concocted the story for the purpose of this case; thatoriginally the grand-father of first Petitioner-first Defendant i. e. Thumma Konda Reddy, was the absolute owner, possessor and pattedar of land in Survey No. 517/a (old) of Revenue village Waddepally; that after the death of the said Konda Reddy the said property devolved upon the father of the first Petitioner-first Defendant by name Gnana Reddy; that after the death of the said Gnana Reddy, the first petitioner-first Defendant and his brothers inherited the same; that in view of the love and affection towards the second Petitioner-second Defendant, the first petitioner-first Defendant settled the open land to an extent of 469 square yards from out of the aforesaid land on 11-10-1990 in favour of the second petitioner-second Defendant and since then the second Petitioner-second defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without any interference from any body as absolute owner thereof; that the second petitioner-second Defendant constructed compound wall and tin shed in the said land in the year 1999; that the second Petitioner-second Defendant has been paying the property tax to the Municipal Corporation, Warangal vide assessment no. 5824/1999 and house bearing municipal No. 1-7-206 isstanding in the name of the second Petitioner-second Defendant; that the Respondents-Plaintiffs described the boundaries of the property of the Petitioners-Defendants with an intention to grab the property and thatthey have no right, title or possession. ( 4 ) HEARD both sides and perused the record. The Petitioners-Defendants also filed Ex. R. 2 property tax receipt, Ex. R. 3 electricity bill, Ex. R. 4 property tax assessment, Exs. R. 6 to R. 8 certified copies of pahanis for the year 1997-98, 1989-90 and 1972-73 respectively and exs. R. 9 to R. 13 certified copies of pahanis. Exs. R. 6 and R. 7 were issued on 30-10-1999; Exs. R. 9 to R. 13 were issued on 29-11-2000 and Ex. R. 8 was issued on 8-11-1983. They show the possession of the land in favour of the petitioners-Defendants. Exs. R. 6 and R. 7 were issued on30-10-1999 whereas exs. P. 4 to P. 8 were obtained by the Respondents-Plaintiffs subsequently on 21-12-1999 for different periods. The trial Court rightly disbelieved the version of the Respondents-Plaintiffs and refused to grant temporary injunction. The lower appellate Court, without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record and without mentioning any cogent reasons, upset the order of the trial Court by misinterpreting the documentary evidence and came to a wrong conclusion that the Respondents-Plaintiffs are in possession and, therefore, they are entitled for temporary injunction. The trial Court held that the socalled Exs. P. 1 and P. 2prima facie appear to be not genuine on the ground that there are interpolations and corrections therein. Those interpolations and corrections were not attested. The lower appellate Court also failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence, which went against the contentions of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. Exs. P. 4 to P. 8 were issued subsequent to issue of Exs. R. 6, R. 7 and R. 8 but the lower appellate Court simply stated that Ex. sp. 4 to P. 8 were issued for earlier periods and that exs. R. 9 to R. 13 were issued for a latter periods. The fact remains that Exs. R. 1 to R. 13 were issued earlier in point of time than Exs. P. 4 to P. 8. The lower appellate Court illegally relied on Exs. P. 4 to P. 8 and ignored exhibits filed by the Petitioners-Defendants and simply relied upon Ex. R. 9 to R. 13 were issued for a latter periods. The fact remains that Exs. R. 1 to R. 13 were issued earlier in point of time than Exs. P. 4 to P. 8. The lower appellate Court illegally relied on Exs. P. 4 to P. 8 and ignored exhibits filed by the Petitioners-Defendants and simply relied upon Ex. P. 4, which is a pahani for the year 1979-80, but in fact the said pahani was issued on21-12-1999. Merely because it states for certain earlier period, it cannot be presumed that the respondents-Plaintiffs are not in possession of the said land. ( 5 ) THE socalled vendors of the Respondents-Plaintiffs stated that they never sold the suit schedule property to the Respondents-Plaintiffs and never executed exs. P. 1 and P. 2 unregistered sale deeds in their favour. The petitioners-Defendants filed the assessment of the Municipal Corporation to establish that the second Petitioner-second Defendant has got house Municipal bearing No. 1-7-206 and that he has been paying property tax and other necessary taxes to the Government. The Petitioners-Defendants claimed that the respondents-Plaintiffs by showing wrong schedule wanted to grab the suit schedule property which is in possession and enjoyment of the second petitioner-second Defendant. Whether the suit land shown in the schedule is within the boundaries or not is to be decided in the main trial. The matter is at the interlocutory stage for temporary injunction. Only basing on the entries of documents produced by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, the Respondents-Plaintiffs are not able to prove prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also not in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. That apart, even the socalled vendors had not supported the contention of the Respondents-Plaintiffs. Therefore, the respondents-Plaintiffs are not able to prove their possession on the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Even if the petitioners-Defendants are not in position to prove that the boundaries are incorrect, burden of proof is on the Respondents-Plaintiffs to prove the prima facie case and they are not able to prove it. The lower appellate Court grossly erred in ignoring the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners-Defendants and granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-Plaintiffs. Even if the petitioners-Defendants are not in position to prove that the boundaries are incorrect, burden of proof is on the Respondents-Plaintiffs to prove the prima facie case and they are not able to prove it. The lower appellate Court grossly erred in ignoring the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners-Defendants and granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-Plaintiffs. There is no oral and documentary evidence in favour of the Respondents-Plaintiffs to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and, therefore, the Respondents-Plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction as rightly held by the trial Court. Admittedly there was no injunction pending disposal of the suit. This Court, while admitting this Civil revision Petition, granted interim suspension of the order of the appellate court on 25-9-2002 and thus there is no injunction. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Respondents-Plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction pending disposal of the suit. The order of the lower appellate Court in C. M. A. No. 53 of 2001 is set aside. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.