While mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title, they serve as relevant evidence to establish prima facie possession for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction in a suit for perpetual injunction.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.09.2019 passed in C.M.A. No. 20 of 2017 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge. Nizamabad, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in I.A.No.04 of 2017 in O.S. No. 01 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

Heard Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed O.S.No.01 of 2017 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-38 gts in Sy.No.1055 situated at Chittapur Village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.04 of 2017 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction during pendency of disposal of the suit.

The case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was that he was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, that the same stands mutated in his name in the revenue records and that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed by the competent authority. He relied upon ROR proceedings and pahanies reflecting his name as pattadar and possessor. It was his specific case that the defendant, who is his brother, has no right or interest over the suit schedule property and that on 25.10.2016 and 14.11.2016 the defendant attempted to interfere with his possession, necessitating filing of the suit and the interlocutory application.

The defendant resisted the application contending that the suit property was originally purchased by their father from one Shapuram Shivalingam and that the mutation in favour of the plaintiff was only nominal. It was further contended that after the death of their father, their mother effected oral partition in the year 2003 dividing the property between the parties and that thereafter, in the year 2005, the plaintiff sold his share to the defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- under a simple sale deed. The defendant claimed that since then he has been in possession and cultivation of the entire extent and relied upon third-party affidavits and electricity receipts in support of his plea.

The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of Exs. Al to A9 filed by the plaintiff and Exs.B1 to B3 filed by the defendant held that the revenue records, pattadar passbook, ROR proceedings and pahanies stand in the name of the plaintiff and disclose prima facie possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court observed that though the defendant pleaded execution of a simple sale deed in his favour in the year 2005, no such document was produced before the learned trial Court and no documentary proof was filed evidencing payment of sale consideration.

The trial Court further held that third-party affidavits relied upon by the defendant cannot override official revenue entries. On such findings, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff established prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury and accordingly granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession.

Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred C.M.A.No.20 of 2017 before the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. In the said appeal, the appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:

i) Whether the appellant/defendant has shown any ground to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal?

(ii) To what relief?

Upon re-appreciation of the material on record