CRP/2211/2019 of KONDREDDI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs NAGA SITA DEVI on 31 December 2019

ORDER:-

The challenge in this C.R.P filed by appellants/plaintiffs is, to the order, dated 10.06.2019 in CMA No.28 of 2018 passed by Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, whereunder the CMA No.28 of 2018 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, was dismissed by confirming the order in I.A.No.583 of 2016 in O.S.No.318 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus. The appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.318 of 2016 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.05.1993 alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the zerioty dry lands of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.412 of Narsapuram Village for Rs.33,000/- and received an advance of Rs.15,000/-, three months time stipulation was made for execution of sale deed. On 13.07.1993, the defendant received balance amount of Rs.18,000/- under endorsement and on 14.07.1993 delivered the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs. Due to increase in the value of the property, the defendant subsequently retracted from the agreement. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant opposed the suit by filing written statement contending that the agreement of sale dated 23.05.1993 and payment endorsement etc., are false.

(a) While so, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.583 of 2016 seeking interim injunction, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The defendant opposed the said petition by filing counter. During enquiry, it appears Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are marked on behalf of defendant.

4. The trial Court having considered the evidence on both sides held that Ex.R1-Certified copy of Adangal issued by Tahsildar, Korukonda Mandal reflects that the respondent/defendant was the pattadar and possessor of the subject land and it contrast Ex.P6 filed by the plaintiffs was only a certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer of Dosakayalapalli and it does not show in which month and year the plaintiffs have cultivated the plaint schedule property and the said certificate also does not show as to when Ex.P6 was issued by the Village Revenue Officer. With regard to the other documents filed by the plaintiffs, the trial Court observed that Ex.P4-Tax receipt only state about the payment of tax and nothing more. It ultimately held that Ex.R1 falsify the claim of petitioners/plaintiffs that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Thus, the trial Court concluded that the petitioners could not show their possession on the date of filing of the suit and thus failed to establish prima-facie case and also balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. On all the aforesaid observations, the trial Court dismissed the petition.

5. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed CMA No.28 of 2018 on the file of Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge at Rajamahendravaram. The lower appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court and observed that though the appellants/plaintiffs claimed that since the date of agreement of sale i.e., from 23.05.1993 they have been in possession, they could not produce documentary evidence i.e., certified copy of Adangals till the date of filing of the suit to show their possession. It accordingly dismissed the CMA.

Hence, the CRP.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

7. Fulminating the order of lower Court, learned counsel for petitioners would argue that both the Courts below failed to consider the Ex.P2-Delivery receipt dated 14.07.1993 whereunder, after receiving the balance of sale consideration the defendant delivered the suit property to the plaintiffs. This document coupled with Ex.P6-certificate issued by VRO, would clinchingly show that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel further argued that Ex.P3 is the title deed of the defendant and the same was delivered by the defendant after receiving of balance of sale consideration. Those documents, she would argue, fortify the case of the plaintiffs.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/defendant, would strenuously argue that since the defendant has strongly denied the agreement of sale and delivery receipt and also explained how her title deed went into the possession of the plaintiffs, those documents cannot be pressed into service by the plaintiffs at this stage to seek for injunction. He would further argue that the plaintiffs utterly failed to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property for the long period till filing of the suit as claimed by them and therefore the CMA was rightly dismissed.

9. The Point for consideration is, whether there are merits in the CRP is allowed?

10. I gave my anxious consideration of the above respective arguments. Sine quo non for claiming interim injunction, is the prima-facie case, coupled with balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury going to be sustained by a party if interim injunction is declined. The prima-facie case in the present context can be understood as plaintiffs' lawful possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale and the payment receipt under which the possession was allegedly delivered to them. Ex.P1-agreement of sale and Ex.P2-delivery receipt were stoutly denied as fabricated documents. In the written statement, the defendant has

taken a plea that one Panduranga Rao the father of the 1[st] plaintiff and husband of the 2[nd] plaintiff has promised the defendant and other purchasers to secure the pattadar pass books and title deeds through a Court of law by spending his money on reimbursement basis. Later, he informed them that he incurred an amount of Rs.33,000/- per acre towards expenses and demanded them to repay the amount. In that process, he took the sale deeds of the defendant and other purchasers as a security and obtained their signatures/thumb impressions on blank Non-Judicial Stamps and white papers and later the plaintiffs, Panduranga Rao and Ramineedu Venugopala Swamy colluded and fabricated the suit documents. Thus, whether the suit documents are genuine ones or not, can be decided only after trial. Therefore, those documents cannot be solely relied upon to decide the interim injunction petition. Hence, the plaintiffs are required to produce authenticated documents showing their possession of the plaint schedule lands since the date of agreement of sale till filing the suit. In this regard, except Ex.P6-Certificate said to be issued by VRO, Dosakayalapalli, they have not produced No.3 Cultivation Adangal for all these years. In contrast, the defendant has filed Ex.R1-Adangal copy issued by the Tahsildar, Korukonda showing her as pattadar and possessor for the Fasli 1425 i.e., for the year 2015. This document establishes the possession of the defendant in respect of the suit land. Since the plaintiffs could not produce any authenticated document UDPR, J

CRP.No.2211 of 2019

showing their possession, both the Courts below have rightly held that they do not deserve interim injunction, I find no illegality or irregularity in their orders.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

31.12.2019 MS

MS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2211 OF 2019

Date. 31.12.2019