APHC010532672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the sixth day of May two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2934 of Between: M. Urukundamma and o and M. Chandra Kumar and Counsel for the petitioner 1. V. Sesha Kumari Counsel for the respondent 1. A. Syam Sundar Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the sixth day of May two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2934 of 2024 others ...Petitioners and Chandra Kumar and others ...Respondents etitioners: espondents: Syam Sundar Reddy the following: [3311] Tuesday, the sixth day of May two thousand and twenty five Petitioners Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2934 of 2024 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 04.10.2024, allowing C.M.A.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni, reversing the order, dated 15.09.2023, allowing I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.S.No.23 of 2023 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property till disposal of the suit. 2. The facts briefly stated are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule land bearing No.196 pyiki to an extent of Ac.2.49 cents was jointly purchased by M.Girappa and M.Yenkamma vide registered sale deed, dated 13.07.1954. On 26.06.2011, the said Yenkamma executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of M.Girappa in respect of her share by receiving valid consideration. Since the date of relinquishment deed, the father of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property as absolute owner. The name of M.Girappa was also mutated in the revenue records in respect of the petition schedule property. M.Girappa died on 25.04.2019 leaving behind the petitioners and his daughters as legal heirs. After the death of Girappa, the name of 1st plaintiff, being wife of M.Girappa, is mutated in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioners got right, title, possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property and enjoying the same by raising cotton, jowar crops. The defendants are strangers and are no way connected to the schedule property. On 10.01.2023, at about 10 a.m., the defendants, along with their men, attempted to dispossess the 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2934 of 2024 petitioners from the suit schedule property. Hence, I.A.No.21 of 2023 was filed. 3. The respondents filed counter opposing the petition and submitting as follows: The respondents are the children of Yenkamma. Girappa died on 25.04.2019 intestate leaving behind his wife, two sons and five daughters. The daughters were not shown as parties to the suit and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Yenkamma executed the relinquishment deed, but the said document was got executed by playing fraud on her. Earlier, a suit was filed in O.S.No.168 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, for partition of the suit schedule property and after compromise, an award was passed. As per the award, the land in Sy.No.196 has to be divided into two shares and one such share shall be allotted to Girappa and the other share to Yenkamma. Those facts were suppressed by the petitioner. After the death of Yenkamma, the respondents succeeded to their share to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents and the names of the respondents were mutated in the revenue records. There are no bona fides on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners were never in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. There is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners who are guilty of suppression of fact are not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. As there is a dispute as to the rights over the plaint schedule property, the suit for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable under law and the mere entries in the revenue records do not give any right to the parties. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2934 of 2024 4. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. The petitioner got marked exhibits P1 to P6 and the respondents got marked exhibits R1 to R16 on their behalf respectively. 5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court, by order dated 15.09.2023, allowed the petition granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents No.1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the petition schedule property till disposal of the suit. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful respondents in I.A.No.21 of 2023 filed C.M.A.No.18 of 2023 before the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni. 7. By the impugned order, the appeal was allowed setting aside the order and decretal order, dated 15.09.2023 in I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.S.No.23 of 2023, consequently dismissing the petition in I.A.No.21 of 2023. 8. Hence, this revision petition was filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs. 9. Since the petition in I.A.No.21 of 2023 was filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 & 2 CPC, the prime consideration is legal possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property and the question of title based on the Lok Adalat award is a consideration while discussing title over the property. 10. In the present case, the initial joint title of the parties of Girappa and Yenkamma is not in dispute. Similarly, Yenkamma executing a registered relinquishment deed in favour of Girappa is also not in dispute. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2934 of 2024 11. The next stage is the award passed by the Lok Adalat regarding cancellation of the relinquishment deed. 12. As per Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh, by A.P. Act 4 of 1999, with effect from 01.04.1999, any decree or order or award or a copy thereof passed by civil Court, on consent of the defendants, or on circumstantial evidence, but not on the basis of any instrument which is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as registered title deed produced by the plaintiff, where such decree or order or award purports or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property requires registration. 13. Therefore, obviously, the award of the Lok Adalat recording cancellation of the registered instrument by which the right was relinquished by Yenkamma needs registration. Without such registration, the document cannot be looked into for the main purpose of establishing cancellation of the relinquishment deed and the right thereunder, however, such a document can be relied on for a collateral purpose, subject to payment of necessary stamp duty and penalty by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. That apart, possession over the disputed property can be established through other documentary evidence. The other disputed aspects of fraud etc., are subject matter of main trial. Till payment of necessary stamp duty, penalty, the award cannot be relied on in evidence. Therefore, as no such stamp duty and penalty were paid on the document of award, for the time being, the said document cannot be looked into. When the other documents are considered, the 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2934 of 2024 prima facie evidence indicates that the legal heirs of Yenkamma are in possession of the share pertaining to her. The appellate Court observed that non-disclosure of the Lok Adalat award in the pleadings is suppression of truth. Of course, the plaintiff contended that this fact came to their knowledge subsequent to the pleadings by the other side. Again, this is a subject matter of trial. Irrespective of that, even after such pleading was taken, the plaintiff failed to file rejoinder. The contentions of the respondents are very material. The appellate Court is correct in setting aside the interim order granting injunction and dismissing I.A.No.21 of 2023. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the appellate Court’s order. It is indicated clearly that the observations made in this order are limited only to the interlocutory proceedings and have no bearing on the trial as the decision in the suit depends on the evidence placed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 06-05-2025 RAR