MADALA KOTAIAH Vs. HAMSA MINERALS AND EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of an order, dated 24.03.2008 passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in I.A. No. 338 of 2007 in O.S. No. 427 of 2007.

(2.) The Petitioner filed the suit, against the Respondents, for perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property of an extent of Acs. 2.10 cents in survey No. 74 and Ac. 0.90 cents in survey No. 71 of R.L. Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. It was pleaded that the original owner of the land was one Sri Pamidi Ramaswamy and that in a partition/settlement, it has fallen to the share of one of his daughters, by name A. Sayamma, the mother of the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioner is the son-in-law of another daughter, by name, Nagamma. He is said to have acquired the suit schedule property from Sayamma through an agreement of sale, dated 12.06.1982, at the rate of Rs. 6,300/-, per acre. He stated that the entire consideration was paid and that the possession of the land was delivered to him. He pleaded that the pattadar passbooks were also issued by the competent Revenue Authority. The Petitioner alleged that the 1st Respondent, which is an Industry, owns land in the neighbourhood of the suit schedule property, and insisted on sale of the said property. On refusal by the Petitioner to sell the property, the 1st Respondent is said to have colluded with the 2nd Respondent and brought into existence, the sale deed, dated 27.08.2005 and started interfering with the property on the basis of the same.

(3.) The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 338 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, for temporary injunction. He asserted that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property for the past several decades and that there is no basis, or justification, on the part of the Respondents to interfere with his possession. The Respondents filed separate counters, opposing the application. Through its order, dated 24.03.2008, the trial Court allowed the I.A., and granted temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioner.