The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting an enquiry in the interim injunction petition before ordering police-aid, taking into consideration the prima facie title and possession of each party.

ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

This CRP is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2018 in I.A.No.391/2016 in I.A.No.78/2016 in O.S.No.53/2016 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Ramannapet, Nalgonda, refusing to grant police-aid to the petitioner/plaintiff pursuant to the ad-interim order dated 21.03.2016 on the ground that order in I.A.No.78/2016 was only an ad-interim injunction and no order on merits was passed yet and thereby the right of either party is not crystallized in the suit property.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Severely fulminating the order impugned, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the Trial Court was under an erroneous opinion that an ad-interim injunction order cannot be implemented and that it is only the final order passed under Order 39, Rule 1 CPC can be implemented. Relying upon the decision in Syed Sadullah Hussaini and another v. Syed Waliullah and another 2017 (1) ALT 553, wherein it was held that Court cannot deny the relief of police-aid for implementation of ad-interim order, learned counsel prayed to allow the CRP.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants would submit that suit-O.S.No.53/2016 is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1-37gts of dry land in Sy.No.264/E on the plea that plaintiff purchased the said land and some other lands under registered Memorandum of Partition Deed dated 23.06.1971 and he alienated some lands and retained the suit land, which he is possession and enjoyment and the defendants without having any semblance of right or title tried to meddle with the suit property. Learned counsel would submit that the defendants vehemently opposed the suit and their case is that the plaintiff's father late Gangupanthula Kishan Rao, was the Patwari of the village and he was holding the land to a total extent of Ac.14-37 gts in the suit Survey Number. He sold Ac.11-37 gts in favour of 3rd defendant's husband Late Rama Swamy about 70 years ago and placed him in possession of the same. Plaintiff's father sold the remaining Ac.3-00gts in favour of one Pakeer Rangaiah, who in turn sold the same in favour of one Bhutham Mallaiah. Learned counsel would further submit that out of Ac.11-37 gts, Ac.10-00gts was transferred in favour of Rama Swamy under 50-B proceedings and plaintiff who was the-then Patwari of the village, promised that he would get the patta for the remaining Ac.1-37 gts and transfer in his favour later. Thus Rama Swamy was in possession and enjoyment of entire Ac.11-37 gts purchased by him. Subsequently Rama Swamy during his lifetime allotted 1Ath share each out of Ac.11-37 gts in favour of his three younger brothers namely Galaiah, Laxmaiah and Muthyalu. Galaiah sold his share of land in favour of his three brothers namely Rama Swamy, Laxmaiah and Muthyalu. Accordingly, the said three brothers were conjointly cultivating the total extent of Ac.11-37 gts. After demise of Rama Swamy, the land held by him was transferred in favour of 3rd defendant. Similarly, after the demise of Bathula Muthyalu, his land was transferred in favour of his wife i.e., 2nd defendant, who subsequently transferred the same in favour of her Son Jangaiah. Thus the defendants 1 to 3 are in actual possession of entire Ac.11-37 gts of land, of which, the plaint schedule land of Ac.1-37 gts is a part.

(a) Learned counsel would further submit that plaintiff and his younger brother Sudarshan Rao, worked as village Patwaris and taking advantage of their post, plaintiff got patta in his favour for Ac.1-37 gts and basing on the false records he filed the suit. Learned counsel would submit that immediately after receiving summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement and also counter in I.A.No.78/2016 and they were always