ORDER:

Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kothapalli Sai Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. Despite service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mancherial in C.M.A. No.23 of 2021, whereby the learned Appellate Court reversed the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chennur in I.A. No. 189 of 2021 in O.S. No. 48 of 2021, wherein the injunction sought by the petitioner was refused.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

4. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit vide O.S. No.48 of 2021 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule properties, asserting title and possession through a chain of documents commencing from a simple sale deed dated 24.02.1999 allegedly executed by petitioner no. 1/defendant no.1 in favour of their father Kashetti Rajanna. Simultaneously, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 189 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule properties. The learned trial Court, dismissed I.A. No. 189 of 2021 by order dated 18.10.2021 on the essential finding holding that the title claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs was under serious cloud and that the alleged simple sale deed on 24.2.1999 said to have been executed in favour of the father of the respondents/plaintiffs was never produced before the learned Trial Court and the 13(B) certificate filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is contrary to their own pleadings.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/defendants:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1, is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, which have been inherited from his mother Inumula Buchamma. The petitioner no.1 being employed in Singareni Collieries, was unable to personally conduct agricultural operations on the suit property and entrusted the agricultural operations to one Kashetti Rajanna, the father of the respondents on a batai (lease) basis. Under the said arrangement, Kashetti Rajanna and the petitioner no. 1 shared the agricultural produce equally at 50% each every year. This relationship of lessor and lessee/batai cultivator was one of trust, and the petitioner no. 1 never visited the suit property or followed up on revenue entries, being confident that his lessee, Kashetti Rajanna, would not misuse the position of trust rested in him.

6. It submitted that the case of the respondent’s rests upon an alleged simple sale deed dated 24.02.1999, allegedly executed by petitioner no. 1 in favour of their father Kashetti Rajanna for a total consideration of Rs. 28,000/-. This document has never been produced by respondents, before the learned Trial Court. The deliberate non-production of this document is itself a circumstance pointing to its non-existence. It was further submitted that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, a sale of immovable property worth Rs. 100/- or more is compulsorily registerable and an unregistered sale deed in respect of such property is inadmissible in evidence and cannot confer or transfer title. Despite multiple opportunities, the respondents have not produced primary title document, and there is no triable question of title and no order of temporary injunction can be granted.

7. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court is bound to examine whether the respondents had established a lawful entitlement over the suit schedule property, particularly when the relief of injunction is claimed on the basis of ownership.