M RAMASWAMY Vs. GOLLA RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 2004, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, isthe petitioner. He filed the suit againstthe respondent herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land and that the respondent herein started interfering with his possession, without any basis. He also filed I.A.No.225 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction. After issuing notice to the respondent herein, the trial Court allowed I .A., through order, dated 09-11 -2004. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.9 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The lowerappellate Courtallowed the C.M.A. on 15-07-2005. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from filing the title deed, marked as Ex.P-1, the petitioner had filed pahanies, marked as Exs.P-2 and P-3, for the period immediately preceding the filing of the suit. He contends that as late as on 26-07-2004, the Sub-Registrar of the area has certified that the suit property is free from encumbrance and the same was filed as Ex.P-4. The learned counsel points out that the trial Court discussed the matter with reference to the documents as well as the third party affidavits and the lower appellate Court reversed the same, without any basis.

(3.) Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the petitioner was the original pattadar of the suit land, he sold the same to Mr. Chandramouli, through sale deed, dated 09-12-1998 and the said Chandramouli, in turn, gifted the land to the daughter of the respondent. He contends thatthe lower appellate Court took into account the fact that Exs.P-2 and P-3 were not issued by an authority vested with the power and therefore, no interference is called for with the orderunder revision.