MURALI DAMODAR KANURI Vs. DAPPU LAXMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is directed against the order in C.M.A. No.28/1997 on the file of Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, dated 5-12-1997 setting aside the order in I.A.No.277/1997 in O.S.No. 122/1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Sangareddy, dated 3-10-1997 and consequently vacating the temporary injunction granted in favour of the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court and the respondents herein are defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the revision petitioner purchased the suit schedule land bearing S.No. 118 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas through Ex.A1 sale deed on 30-1-1980 from four vendors and S.No. 119 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas under Ex.A3 sale deed on the same day from 25 vendors and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same eversince that day. Out of the aforesaid 3 acres 18 guntas, a piece of 25 guntas was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying a road and excluding that portion of the land, an extent of 2 acres 33 guntas was sold under Ex.A3 sale deed. He has been granted patta pass books which are marked as Exs.A5 and A6 and subsequently there was enquiry under Inams Abolition Act and a final patta certificate was granted by the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer on 20-11-1996. The patta certificate is marked as Ex.A7. It is the case of the revision petitioner that his vendors filed affidavits before the Inams Tribunal admitting the factum of sale and putting him in possession. When the respondents herein started interfering with his possession, he filed O.S.No.122 of 1997 seeking perpetual injunction. He also filed I. ANo. 277 of 1997 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Principal District Munsif at Sangareddy granted an order to maintain status quo on 16-8-1997 and after hearing both parties, he allowed the petition and granted temporary injunction on 3-10-1997. The respondents carried the matter in appeal to the District Court where the learned Additional District Judge by his order in C.M.A.No. 28/1997 dated 5-12-1997 discharged the temporary injunction. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Sri. V. Venkata Ramanaiah, learned senior Counsel strenuously contended that a strong prima facie case is a made out by the revision petitioner in as much as the registered sale deeds obtained from the original owners under Exs. A.1 and A.3 show that possession was delivered on the same day; that Inams Tribunal has granted final patta certificate on 20-11-1996 under Ex: A7 and a competent authority has issued patta pass books-Exs. A.5 and A.6 and that there is a presumption of correctness of the entries in the patta pass books under Section 6 of the Record of Rights Act. He also contended that his name is recorded as actual cultivator in the latest pahani. He, therefore, urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the order of the learned Additional District Judge may be set aside and the order of the learned Principal District Munsif may be restored.