Registration of a sale deed and mutation of revenue records are insufficient to prove actual physical possession of a property for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction; actual possession must be independently established through evidence such as utility bills.

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. No representation on behalf of the Respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. He filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction along with I.A.No.859/2018 for an ad-interim temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Vide Order dated 11.09.2018, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam was pleased to grant an ad-interim ex parte Order of Status-quo/Temporary Injunction. Thereafter, the Defendant came on record. Vide Order dated 16.10.2024, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, after having considered the facts of the case, was pleased to vacate the earlier ad-interim temporary injunction dated 11.09.2018.

4. Having been aggrieved of the Order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam dated 16.10.2024, the Plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.21/2024 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner herein has purchased the subject property by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018 (Ex.P.1) and got the Revenue Record mutated. She would also contend that the Appellate Court had failed to consider Exs.P.1 to P.5 in the right perspective. Learned Counsel would further contends that the finding given by the Courts below that the said exhibits are ‘no way helpful’ to the Plaintiff/Petitioner for establishing the possession of the Plaintiff/Petitioner over the Suit Schedule Property are contrary to Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also contend that the finding rendered by the Appellate Court that the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein is not entitled to an interim injunction for the reason that the Plaintiff/Petitioner had not filed any document establishing the possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property by his vendor or his vendors vendor is incorrect.

7. The learned I Additional District Judge, having considered the contentions of both the parties and various documents, was pleased to dismiss the C.M.A.No.21/2024 vide Order dated 01.07.2025. This Order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, confirming the Order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam in I.A.No.859/2018 dated 16.10.2024, is now under challenge in the present C.R.P.

8. This Court has noticed that Ex.P.1 is the original registered Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018; Ex.P.2 is the original registered Redemption deed dated 22.03.2018; Ex.P.3 is the Encumbrance Certificate dated 19.03.2018; and Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Proceedings of Srikakulam Municipal Commissioner about the mutation of municipal records dated 11.07.2018 issued in favour of the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Electricity Consumption Charges (two in number) dated 06.09.2018. It also transpires from the record that the Defendant/Respondent herein has filed Possessory Mortgage Deed executed by one Smt. J. Padmavathi in favour of the Defendant on 16.08.2003, Pronote dated 25.10.2015 executed by Smt. J. Padmavathi in favour of the Defendant as exhibits Exs.R.1 & R.2 respectively. The Defendant/Respondent has also filed Exs.R.3 to R.41 which are the Bills of Electricity, Water and Telephone C