ORDER :- The first respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioners and the second respondent for injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over 537.25 Sq. yards in Sy. No.313 of Chandanagar Village within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint, which hereinafter will be called as the suit land, inter alia alleging that he purchased the suit land under a registered document in 1967 from one V. Venkat Ramaiah, who had purchased the same in 1965 from the original owners of the land, namely Donti Narsaiah and his sons namely Veeraiah, Shankeraiah, Ramu/u and Kistaiah and that those people, i.e., Donti Narsaiah and his sons also sold an extent of 537.25 Sq.yards to one V. Radha Krishna Murthy, who is the eastern side neighbour to the suit land and the said Radha Krishna Murthy developed the property and constructed a residential apartment with the name Balaji Apartment and subsequently, he constructed a compound wall to protect the suit land and that the revision petitioners, who are his neighbours, are trying to encroach upon the suit land in spite of his protest.

2. In the above suit, first respondent filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit, restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with his possession over the suit land, which was contested by the revision petitioners by filing a counter, inter alia contending that the mother of the first revision petitioner by name Chadramma filed O.S. No.5 of 1971 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of her share in the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint, which was decreed, which was confirmed by both the appellate Courts and thereafter, a final decree was passed whereunder Chandramma was put in possession of Sy. No.313, which is an agricultural land. After the death of Chadramma, the revision petitioners developed the property allotted to the share of Chandramma between 1965 to 1967. As there is no division of the land either into plots or sub-division, no sub-division Sy.No.313/3 was there between 1965 to 1967 and so the sale deeds relied on by the first respondent are sham, nominal and are fraudulent. As no layout was sanctioned in Sy. No.3 13 and as construction of apartment by respondent No.1 adjacent to the suit land has nothing to do with the land belonging to them and as the fist respondent has no land in or around Sy. No.313, he is not entitled to the injunction sought.

3. First respondent marked five documents and the revision petitioners marked six documents in support of their contentions but did not adduce any oral evidence. The trial Court allowed the petition of the first respondent and granted injunction sought in favour of the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal to the appellate Court, which was dismissed by the order under revision. Hence, this revision.

4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court and appellate Court were in error in observing that the first respondent established a prima facie case and the other two ingredients required for granting of an injunction in his favour, failing to note that he did not produce any document to establish his possession over the suit land, and that the sale deeds relied on by the first respondent, which are of the years 1965 and 1967 obtained when Section 47 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act") was in force are null and void, as sale of agricultural land at that time can be effected only after obtaining permission from the Tahasildar, and as the first respondent failed to produce any document to show that any such permission was obtained from the Tahasildar, and so the Courts erred in passing order in favour of the first respondent without keeping in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document