::1:: APHC010722372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 87/2026 Between: 1. CHELICHAMA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O LATE CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O THELLABADU VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHELICHAMA HARIBABU, S/O SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O SVN COLONY, GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT - 522006. 2. CHELICHAMA RAMABABU, , S/O SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O THELLABADU VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523211. 3. DESU PULLA RAO, S/O VENKATA SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O DAIVALARAVUR VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523212. 4. KANAPARTHY YOGAIAH, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O TELLABADU POST AND VILLAGE MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523211. 5. GATTENINI VENKATA SESHAIAH, S/OANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 ::2:: YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O MALLAVARAM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523211. 6. ANNABATHINA SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O DODDAVARAM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523211. 7. CHEEDARA PADMAVATHI, W/O ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. HOMEMAKER, R/O D.NO.5-173, CHIMAKURTHY VILLAGE AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523226. RESPONDENTS/ 8. CHELICHAMA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LATE CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. NOW RESIDENT AT CHICAGO, U.S.A. PERMANENT R/O THELLABADU VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523211. 9. NALLURI RAMA DEVI, , W/O KISHORE, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER, NOW R/O BHAGYANAGAR, BESIDE SRKT COLLEGE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523226. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to Being aggrieved by the Order and Decree, Dt. 10.09.2025 passed in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2021 on the file of the court of Learned III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Ongole, dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the Order and Decree dt. 15.10.2019 passed in I.A. No. 1259 of 2016 in O.S. No.291 of 2016 on the file of the court of Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.87 of 2026 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.09.2025 passed in CMA No.12 of 2021 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Ongole dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the order and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.1259 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. The case of petitioner herein is that the father of the petitioner No.1 got purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property under two separate registered sale deeds dt.27.07.1977 and 22.10.1977 respectively from his vendor one Panda Venkata Raja Gopala Krishna Chowdary and his sons. Since then his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and also he had been raised ::4:: dry crops i.e., tobacco, paddy, red gram etc., till his death. But he did not take steps for mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the petition schedule mentioned property in his name pursuant to his acquisition as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (For short “Act, 1971”) as there was no controversy from his vendor and therefore the names of the vendors remains in FLR and in other revenue records, the father of the petitioner died on 27.12.1990 as intestate leaving behind the Petitioners No.1 to 3/plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioners became joint owners of the petition schedule mentioned property being legal heirs by way of Hindu Succession and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 3. Further stated that, there are some family disputes, therefore the petitioner No.3 filed suit in OS No.287/2011 for the relief of partition against the petitioners No.1 and 2 by seeking 1/3rd share in the properties and the same was decreed. During the course of final decree proceedings in the said OS No.287/2011, the defendants No.4 to 7 herein tried their level best to dispossess the petitioners from the ::5:: petition schedule mentioned property by using force and by alleging that they got purchased Ac.4.25 cents of land from the defendants No.1 to 3, but those transactions are collusive and are not binding on the petitioners. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to institute a suit i.e. O.S.No.291 of 2016 to declare that, they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule mentioned property. 4. It is further case of petitioner herein that an Interim Application i.e. I.A.No.1259 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2016 is filed seeking for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from the interference with regard to suit schedule property. Wherein the trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 15.10.2019, observing that as balance of convenience is not in favouring the petitioners. The said order was assailed through an appeal before the III Additional Judge vide CMA No.12/2021. The appellate court also dismissed the CMA vide order dated 10.9.2025. Aggrieved by the said order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts have failed to appreciate the acquisition under the Exhibits-P2 and P3 i.e., certified copy of the registered sale deeds dated 27.7.1977 and ::6:: sale deed dated 22.10.1977 and further failed to consider the other exhibits which consists of pattadar passbook, adangals, and revenue entries showing petitioners names in the revenue records, which clearly proves the long-standing possession of petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the other suits instituted by respondents Nos.2 to 7 i.e., O.S.No.240/2013 and O.S.No.464/2012 against the petitioners and others herein were dismissed by holding that nobody has title in their favour. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of material place on record, It is settled proposition of law that to grant a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied with the cognet evidence that there is a prima facie case of the possession, balance of convenience and there would be an irreparable loss, if temporary injunction was not granted. In the present case, the petitioner/plaintiffs are unable to establish prima facie possession over the entire extent of suit schedule property. On perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court, it is observed that the Ex.P4 and P5 i.e., RSR and FLR filed by the petitioner clearly shows that the vendor of the father of the petitioners was in possession and enjoyment of ::7:: the suit schedule property i.e., in Sy.No.176/1 in respect of the entire extent of Ac.8.5 cents. Whereas even though the father of the petitioners acquired the subject property through alleged registered sale deeds in the year 1977, neither mutated his name as pattadar in the revenue records and nor he was issued pattadar passbooks to that effect. 8. It is settled law that since the petitioner acquired the subject property through registered deeds, he should have been in possession and enjoyment of the property as per the recitals of the said deeds but as per the provisions of the Act, 1971, any property holder who acquired the property shall get mutation into revenue records to assess the property in his favour. But in the instant case the father of the petitioner not complied the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1971. It is also settled law that to prove the possession over the vacant land by substantiating through revenue record. In the absence of such revenue record the petitioners failed to prove their possession over the entire extent of land. On perusal of the order of the trial Court at Para13 and 14 which shows that the petitioners were mutated and issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to an extent of Ac.2.13 cents each in Sy.No.176/1 total extent of Ac.4.25 cents out of Ac.8.50 cents. Therefore, ::8:: the claim of the petitioners that the trial Court not considered the registered deeds under which the father of the petitioner acquired the entire suit schedule property of Ac.8.50 cents is not valid and acceptable and contrary to the evidence put forth by the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 before the trial Court. It is observed that as per the revenue record furnished by the respondents which shows that the subject property of Ac.8.50 cents is joint family property between the father of the petitioners and his brother Sankara Rao, who is vendor’s vendor of the respondents herein who acquired remaining 50% of the property through various sale deeds duly executed by Sankara Rao who is none other than the brother of Chalapathi Rao. Therefore, finding of the trial Court prima facie the petitioners are not in possession of the entire extent of land is true and correct but they were in possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.4.75 cents as per Ex.P4 and P5. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court and material placed on record and considering that the suit is pending since 2016 and I.A is disposed of in the year 2019 and CMA is filed after two years i.e., in the year 2021 and which was disposed of on 10.09.2025 and present CRP is filed in the year 2026, one decade already elapsed after filing the suit. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present CRP can be ::9:: disposed of directing the parties herein to maintain status-quo obtaining as on the date of the suit regarding the possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the trial Court hereby directed that if the trial is already commenced, the parties hereby directed to cooperate with the trial Court to see that the trial should be completed within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if trial is not yet commenced, the trial Court hereby directed to commence the trial and complete the trial as early as possible and see that the suit is dispose of at the earliest. 10. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 30.03.2026 krk ::10:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.87 of 2026 DT: 30.03.2026 krk 194