HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3745 of 2014 Date : 28-11-2014 Between :
V. Govardhan Reddy and another .. Petitioners And Neela Srinivas (reported died before filing of the suit) and another ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Senior Counsel Counsel for respondent No.1 : --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 21-8- 2014 in C.M.A.No.28 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 7-2-2012 in I.A.No.465 of 2011 in O.S.No.107 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.
I have heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
Respondent No.1 filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that on 3-12-2007 his father has executed a registered gift deed and that in pursuance thereof he has been in possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners have, however, pleaded that prior to the execution of the gift deed, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the father of respondent No.1 has executed registered sale deed in their favour on 26-9-2007 for a valuable consideration and they have been in physical possession of the property.
Both the parties have adduced documentary evidence was produced. On behalf of respondent No.1, Exs.P-1 to P-25 were filed. On behalf of the petitioners, Exs.R-1 to R-4 were filed. Based on the documentary evidence, the trial Court has held that respondent No.1 is in physical possession of the suit schedule property and has accordingly granted temporary injunction against the petitioners. In the C.M.A. filed by the petitioners, the said order was confirmed.
At the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the finding rendered by the lower appellate Court that the sale deed executed by the G.P.A. of the father of respondent No.1 does not convey title is legally not sound.
In my opinion, in a suit for injunction, the predominant issue to be decided is as to who is in possession of the property. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of the application for temporary injunction, there was no need for the lower appellate Court to render any finding on the competence or otherwise of the G.P.A. to execute the sale deed. It will suffice to note that based on Ex.P-3 to P-15 pahanies and other evidence such as Ex.P-17-Electricity charges passbook, Ex.P- 20–Bore motor bill dated 4-7-2011 and also Ex.P-24-certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11, the trial Court has concluded that respondent No.1 is in possession of the property. In the light of these findings, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the injunction order granted by the trial Court, as confirmed in the appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the findings rendered by both the Courts below in the orders under revision shall not influence the trial Court while deciding the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5119 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 28-11-2014 AM