C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) REVISION petitioner filed O. S. No. 1838 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the properties specified in the schedule appended to the plaint, and filed I. A. No. 3084 of 2000 therein under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. seeking injunction during the pendency of the suit. Since the respondents filed a Caveat, notice of the petition I. A. No. 3084 of 2000 was served on the counsel for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit property under two agreements of sale dated 3-11-1971 and 1-11-1971 from the father of the respondents and their paternal uncle and was put in possession of the property and that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession without any right. The respondents disputed the agreements relied on by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed an additional affidavit alleging that on the intervening night of 27 and 28-12-2000 respondents trespassed into the suit property and erected a shed to make it appear that they have been in possession of the suit property though they in fact are not.

( 2 ) IN support of the case of the revision petitioner Exs. P1 to P9 were marked and in support of the case of the respondents, Exs. R1 to R17 were marked. It is not out of place for me to mention that the learned Junior Civil Judge was in error in marking the documents filed by the revision petitioner as Exs. P1 to P9 and documents produced by the respondents as Exs. R1 to R17. He ought to have marked them as Exs. A1 to A9 and B1 to B17 as contemplated by Rules 51 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on the basis that the revision petitioner himself admitted that the respondents trespassed into the suit property and on the basis that some of the documents being relied on by the revision petitioner which require registration are not registered, dismissed the petition. On appeal by the revision petitioner in C. M. A. No. 48 of 2001, the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal while confirming the order of the Junior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Courts below erred in not taking into consideration Exs. P1 and P2 on the ground that they unregistered sale deeds without keeping in view the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, which contemplates the Courts looking into unregistered documents for collateral purpose of possession, and contended that since the petition has to be decided on the question of possession as on the date of the suit, and since the documentary evidence adduced by the revision petitioner clinchingly establishes possession of the revision petitioner over the suit property on the date of suit, he is entitled to injunction in his favour. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since Exs. P1 and P2 are mere agreements of sale, the suit filed for injunction simplicitor without seeking the relief of specific performance of those agreements is not maintainable as held in K. VENKATA RAO AND OTHERS vs. S. VENKATA RAO. It is also his contention that the documents produced by the respondents establish their possession over the suit property even prior to the filing of the suit and so both the Courts rightly dismissed the petition and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.

( 4 ) IT is not necessary for me, for deciding this revision, to go into the question as to whether Exs. P1 and P2 are agreements of sale or sale deeds. If they are construed as agreements of sale, they do not require registration, and if they are construed as sale deeds, they do require registration in view of Section 17 of Registration Act. No doubt as per the provisions of Section 49 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document