PENDOTI LINGAIAH Vs. CHINTHA MUTHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.2 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of Ac.10.50 guntas of land in Survey Nos.327, 328 and 329 of Dandempally Village of Nalgonda District. He pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased from the original land owner, by name Akkinepally Raja Ranga Rao, through a registered sale deed, dated 22.05.2001, for a consideration of Rs.1,55,700/-. It was also contended that the possession was delivered to him and thereafter, his name was entered in the connected revenue records. The petitioner complained that the respondents started interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit schedule property, without any basis. The petitioner filed I.A.No.21 of 2005 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the I.A., through its order, dated 28.07.2005.

(2.) The respondents filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2006, against the order in the I.A., in the Court of III Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Nalgonda. Through its order, dated 21.06.2006, the lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, vacating the order of temporary injunction, in respect of Ac.2.00 of land in Survey No.329. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Sri G.Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client filed a number of documents, to prove the possession of his vendor over the suit schedule property till the date of sale and of himself till the date of filing of the suit. He contends that except a stray entry in the revenue records in respect of the said Ac.2.00 of land, the respondents did not place any material before the trial Court and despite the same, the lower appellate Court had vacated the injunction, in respect of the same. He submits that the respondents failed to indicate the manner, in which they acquired any right in any portion of the suit schedule property. Sri M.Hamsa Raj, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that his clients purchased the said Ac.2.00 of land from the same vendor about 18 years ago and ever since then, they have been in possession of the property. He contends that on account of their illiteracy, the respondents did not get any documents in their favour and after due verification in the locality, the revenue authorities issued certificates and entered their names in the revenue records, as regards Ac.2.00 of land. He submits that the lower appellate Court has taken these aspects into account and passed a well considered order.

(3.) The suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor, in respect of Ac.10.50 guntas of land. There is no dispute as to the fact that Akkinepally Raja Ranga Rao is the original owner of the said land. In fact, the respondents also claimed that they have purchased Ac.2.00 of land from the same vendor. On their part, the petitioner filed pahanies for the years 1990-91 to 2000-01, depicting that the land in Survey Nos.327, 328 and 329, admeasuring Ac.10.50 guntas, was in possession and ownership of the said Raja Ranga Ro. Ex.P.1 is the registered sale deed, dated 22.05.2001. Based upon this, the revenue authorities issued title deed and pattedar pass book in favour of the petitioner and the same were marked as Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the Adangal for the year 2003-04 and Ex.P.5 is the certificate of encumbrance, in relation to the said land. In the context of consideration of an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C, this material should constitute valid basis for granting the relief. The Court can deny the relief, in such a case, if only there is any stronger evidence or material in favour of the other party.