Ch. Madhav Reddy And 9 Others vs Ganta Laxmamma And 10 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 93 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1540 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed

against order dated 21.04.2008 in I.A.No.3190 of 2006 in

O.S.No.1212 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein, interim

application filed by the respondents herein seeking interim

injunction pending suit was allowed. The respondents herein filed

the said suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property.

Aggrieved by the interim injunction, the present appeal is filed at

the instance of the respondents therein.

2. The case of the respondents herein before the trial Court is

that they are absolute owners and possessors of the suit property

by virtue of sale deeds from original land lords executed in the year

1992. After sale deeds were obtained mutations were effected, title

deeds and pattedar pass books were granted in their names.

Further, their names were also recorded in revenue records as

pattedars and possessors. However, the appellants herein without

any possession, basing on the sale deeds which were obtained by

them from their vendor on the alleged 38-E certificate, tried to

ML,J CMA_1540_2008

enter into possession of the suit property basing on succession

certificate obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer by their

vendor. Hence, the respondents herein filed suit for perpetual

injunction and also filed the present interim application seeking

interim injunction pending suit.

3. The case of the appellants herein before the trial Court is that

their original vendor's father was holding 38-E certificate over the

suit property and after his death succession certificate was

obtained by the vendor of the appellants from Mandal Revenue

Officer. Subsequent to the said succession proceedings, the

appellants herein purchased the suit properties from the legal

representative of the holder of 38-E certificate, who is their vendor.

Since then, they are in possession of the suit property and

according to them the respondents herein are not in possession of

the suit property and prayed to dismiss the interim application.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the

following issue for consideration:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for interim injunction as prayed for in respect of plaint schedule A to K properties?"

5. In support of their case, respondents herein got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-50 and appellants herein got marked Exs.R-1 to R-13

ML,J CMA_1540_2008

before the trial Court. The trial Court also marked Exs.C-1 to C-5,

which were received from revenue department.

6. On appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court found

that the respondents have established prima facie case of their

possession over the suit property and also found that the

appellants have failed to file any document to prove their

possession. In the said circumstances, the trial Court has granted

interim injunction as prayed for by the respondents herein.

7. Learned counsel for appellants contended before this Court

that the trial Court has not considered the 38-E certificate which

was granted and also did not consider subsequent proceedings of

Mandal Revenue Officer granting succession in favour of the vendor

of the appellant. Basing on such succession proceedings, the

appellants have purchased the suit property and since then they

are in possession of the same. According to the appellants, the

respondents were never in possession of the suit property.

8. None appeared and there is no representation from the

respondents.

ML,J CMA_1540_2008

9. On close scrutiny, prima facie the material produced by the

respondents herein before the trial Court shows that they have

been claiming title and possession over the suit property on the

strength of sale deeds executed by their vendor whose name was

being reflected in revenue records. The said sale deeds were

pertaining to the year 1992. They also effected mutations, obtained

title deeds and pattedar pass books were also issued in their

favour.

10. The trial Court also considered the material placed by the

appellants herein. The entire genesis of the case of the appellants

is on the basis of 38-E certificate granted in the year 1975 in favour

of father of the vendor of the appellants. No material has been

placed on record to prima facie establish that after grant of 38-E

certificate the possession of the suit property was handed over to

the 38-E certificate holder. Once 38-E certificate is granted, the

Mandal Revenue Officer has no power to grant any succession. The

entire sale transactions are based on 38-E certificate.

Subsequently, the succession certificate granted by the Mandal

Revenue Officer was set aside by the Joint Collector, on the

challenge being made by the respondents herein.

ML,J CMA_1540_2008

11. The appellants have not placed any record which prima facie

shows that either their vendor or original grantee of 38-E certificate

had been holding any possession prior to effect of transfers in

favour of the appellants. The trial Court has rightly considered the

prima facie material on record and rightly granted interim

injunction in favour of the respondents herein, which requires no

interference.

12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed

confirming the order dated 21.04.2008 in I.A.No.3190 of 2006 in

O.S.No.1212 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. There shall be no

order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall

stand closed.

______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 05.01.2023 GVR