GADDAM NARASIMHA Vs. PULI SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order dated 29-1-2002 in C.M.A. No.11 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, allowing the appeal and dismissing I.A. No.501 of 2001 in OS. No.34 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C.

(2.) Revision petitioner filed O.S. No.34 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and their family members from entering into or interfering with his possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.30 cents in S. No.81/1 (old) corresponding to 82/72 (new) within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule (hereinafter called "the suit property"), alleging that as an ex-serviceman he was assigned an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.Nos.82 and 68, i.e., Ac.4.00 in S.No.82 and Ac.1.00 in S.No.68 of Yeshwanthapur village of Jangaon Revenue Mandal which includes the suit land in 1980, and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land, and that the respondents, with a dishonest intention, are trying to encroach into the suit land; and filed I.A. No.501 of 20.01 in the said suit seeking a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit against the respondents. By his order dated 21-11-2001, the learned Junior Civil Judge passed an order of ex parte injunction against the respondents. Subsequently, respondents put in their appearance and filed the counter- affidavit of second respondent (second defendant in the suit) on their behalf in LA. No.501 of 2001, denying the allegations in the plaint, and contending that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit land or the remaining land in the said survey number as alleged by him, and that her father Puli Narasimhulu, who was an ex-serviceman, was assigned an extent of Ac.2.20 gts. in S.No.82 of Jangaon Town under a patta, and consequently his name also was mutated in the revenue records and the said land was given Survey No.82/Bl for some period and for some period it was shown as S.No.82/1, but in Setwar of 1988 the land assigned to her father was shown as S.No.82/72, but the same was not implemented in the pahanies, and after the death of her father in 1993, when she sought for mutation of that land in her name, her name was mutated in the revenue records, and was given a patta passbook under the provisions of Record of Rights Act, and since she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.20 gts. in S.No.82 as an absolute owner, and her cousin-first respondent, is looking after the said land on her behalf, and since revision petitioner is not in possession of any part of the said land, revision petitioner is not entitled to an injunction, but he by making false representation, obtained an ex parte injunction against her and second (sic. first) respondent.

(3.) Revision petitioner filed a petition to send for certain documents from the Mandal Revenue Office, and the case was being adjourned from time to time for receipt of documents from the Mandal Revenue Office, and so the learned Junior Civil Judge did not take up the hearing of I..A. No.501 of 2001. Therefore, on the basis of A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan respondents filed CMA No.11 of 2001 against the order granting an ex parte injunction against them. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after allowing the parties to adduce documentary evidence, allowed the C.M.A. and dismissed LA. No.501 of 2001 and vacated the ex parte injunction granted against the respondents. Hence this revision by the plaintiff.