1 APHC010530642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2728/2025 Between: 1. SIVALANKI SANKARA RAO, S/O LATE VENKATA RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-9/44, KAKI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM CITY AND DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O PLOT NO. 306, P.N. COLONY, SRIKAKULAM CITY AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. BASAVA RAVI, S/O LATE SATYAM, AGED 45 YEARS R/O D.NO. 9-5- 42/A, GUDI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM CITY AND DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. No representation on behalf of the Respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. He filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction along with I.A.No.859/2018 for an ad-interim temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Vide Order dated 11.09.2018, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam was pleased to grant an ad-interim ex parte Order of Status-quo/Temporary Injunction. Thereafter, the Defendant came on record. Vide Order dated 16.10.2024, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, after having considered the facts of the case, was pleased to vacate the earlier ad-interim temporary injunction dated 11.09.2018. 4. Having been aggrieved of the Order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam dated 16.10.2024, the Plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.21/2024 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner herein has purchased the subject property by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018 (Ex.P.1) and got the Revenue Record mutated. She would also contend that the Appellate Court had failed to consider Exs.P.1 to P.5 in the right perspective. Learned Counsel would further contends that the finding given by the Courts below that the said exhibits are 8no way helpful9 to the Plaintiff/Petitioner for establishing the possession of the Plaintiff/Petitioner over the Suit Schedule Property are contrary to Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also contend that the finding rendered by the Appellate Court that the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein is not entitled to an interim injunction for the reason that the Plaintiff/Petitioner had 3 not filed any document establishing the possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property by his vendor or his vendors vendor is incorrect. 7. The learned I Additional District Judge, having considered the contentions of both the parties and various documents, was pleased to dismiss the C.M.A.No.21/2024 vide Order dated 01.07.2025. This Order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, confirming the Order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam in I.A.No.859/2018 dated 16.10.2024, is now under challenge in the present C.R.P. 8. This Court has noticed that Ex.P.1 is the original registered Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018; Ex.P.2 is the original registered Redemption deed dated 22.03.2018; Ex.P.3 is the Encumbrance Certificate dated 19.03.2018; and Ex.P.4 is the copy of the Proceedings of Srikakulam Municipal Commissioner about the mutation of municipal records dated 11.07.2018 issued in favour of the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Electricity Consumption Charges (two in number) dated 06.09.2018. It also transpires from the record that the Defendant/Respondent herein has filed Possessory Mortgage Deed executed by one Smt. J. Padmavathi in favour of the Defendant on 16.08.2003, Pronote dated 25.10.2015 executed by Smt. J. Padmavathi in favour of the Defendant as exhibits Exs.R.1 & R.2 respectively. The Defendant/Respondent has also filed Exs.R.3 to R.41 which are the Bills of Electricity, Water and Telephone Consumption Charges for establishing the fact that the Defendant/Respondent is in actual physical possession of the subject property. 9. This Court has perused the reasoning given by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam in his Order dated 16.10.2024. It is categorically held by the learned Judge in para 15 of the Order that Exs.R.24 to R.29, which are the bills, relating to Water Tax and Property tax as regard the Petition Schedule Property, are in possession of the Defendant/Respondent. Crucial documents, which are marked as Exs.R.30 and R.31 to R.39, pertaining to the telephone connection, it is noted by the 4 learned Judge, that the telephone bills are in the name of the Defendant/Respondent (Sri Ravi Basava) for which the BSNL had issued telephone bills. It is also noted that Ex.R.31/telephone bill discloses that the schedule premises (Plot No.306, 6th lane, PN Colony, Fazulbegpeta, Srikakulam) where the telephone connection was given is in the name of the Respondent and the said premises is nothing but the Petition Schedule Property. Having considered the same, the trial Court held that the evidence produced by the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein is insufficient to show prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner and therefore, the balance of convenience is not in his favour. 10. In the Appel (CMA No.21/2024), the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam vide Order dated 01.07.2025, had noted the findings of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam including the bills pertaining to Property Tax and Water Tax and also the telephone bills which are in the name of Defendant/Respondent. The learned Appellate Judge had also held that a mere fact that the Petitioner9s name was mutated in the Revenue Record, by itself, does not indicate that the Plaintiff/Petitioner is in possession of the Suit property. It is also held that mere registration of the Sale Deed does not indicate that the Plaintiff/Petitioner is in actual possession in the Suit property, inasmuch as the Plaintiff/Petitioner has to not only show his prima facie title, but also being in actual physical possession and enjoyment over the Suit property. It is, therefore, held that the Defendant/Respondent has successfully proved his prima facie possession over the Petition Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the Suit through Exs.R.1 to R.47 and therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Defendant/Respondent. 11. In Para No.16 of the Impugned Order herein passed by the learned Appellate Judge namely the Ist Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, it is clearly stated that the Defendant/Respondent denied the right, title and possession over the suit property in his pleadings and that the 5 Plaintiff/Petitioner herein has filed the Suit for mere injunction without seeking a relief of declaration. It is also noted in para 4 of the Order of the Trial Judge in I.A.No.859/2018 dated 16.10.2024 that the Defendant/Respondent had specifically contended that the Vendor9s Vendor of the Petitioner namely Smt. J. Padmavathi has executed the Possessory Mortgage Deed in favour of the Defendant/Respondent way back on 16.08.2003 (Ex.R.1); and that the said Smt. J. Padmavathi has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the same day from the Defendant/Respondent and on the same day i.e., on 16.08.2003 she had executed unregistered Possessory Mortgage Deed in favour of the Defendant/Respondent and subsequently the Petition Schedule Property was delivered to the Defendant/Respondent. It is also held that the Defendant/Respondent paid Electricity Charges in the name of K.L. Pathiraju and it is covered under Exs.R.3 to R.23 and also Water Tax and Property Tax receipts covered under Exs.R.20 to Ex.R.29 and copies of BSNL landline phone bills covered under Exs.R.30 and 31 and also filed Electricity Consumption Charges and Demand Notices and Photographs. 12. In Para No.17 of the Impugned Order, it has been stated that neither the registered Sale Deed nor the mutated Revenue Record would tantamount to the Plaintiff/Petitioner being in possession of the suit property and that mere registration of Sale Deed is not a proof that the suit property was delivered to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. The Appellate Court had therefore held that the Plaintiff/Petitioner is bound to show his prima-facie title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In Para No.19 of the Impugned Order, it has been held that mere filing of Exs.P.1 & 2, does not mean that the subject property is delivered to the Plaintiff/Petitioner and that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has not filed any piece of paper to show that his vendor was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of Ex.P.1. It is therefore held that the learned Trial Judge appreciated both pleadings and documentary evidence relied upon by both the parties at interlocutory stage and held that the Court can decide rights of the parties tentatively at the interlocutory stage and it may not be possible to decide conclusively. In Para 6 No.20 of the Impugned Order, the Appellate Court has placed on record the Judgment rendered by the Hon9ble High Court of Telangana in Vuppalapati Ramesh Vs. T. Narayana Reddy : 2023 (1) ALT 16, wherein, the Hon9ble Division Bench of High Court of Telangana held as under: <7. Ordinarily, the three main principles which govern the grant or refusal of injunction are (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and, (c) irreparable injury. In grant and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis the Court must adjudge the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. Only on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury, an injunction would be granted. The Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. In dealing with such matters, the Court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties by balancing the conveniences and inconveniences. In addition to the basic principles, temporary injunction, being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.= 13. Having considered the same, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere in the present C.R.P., inasmuch the C.R.P. is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. This Court has merely considered the findings rendered by the Appellate Court but had not expressed anything on merit. Therefore, the Trial Court may proceed with the Suit in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Order, inasmuch as the same were made only to deal with the contentions of the Revision Petitioner. 7 15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:04.02.2026 Vns/JKS