THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH REW.S.A.MP.NO.1925 OF 2010 IN S.A.NO.226 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The review petitioner is respondent in the second appeal and he is the original defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. She filed the suit in O.S.No.266/1990 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property in H.No.17-1-181/A, admeasuring about 335 sq. yards situate near old Ed-gah, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. By judgment and decree dated 28.8.1996, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed first appeal in A.S.No.84/1997 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower appellate court by judgment and decree dated 31.10.2000 reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court, allowed the appeal and thereby dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the original plaintiff filed the second appeal and by judgment dated 30.4.2010, this court allowed the second appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1996 passed by the trial court in decreeing the suit. Seeking review of the judgment dated 30.4.2010, the defendant in the original suit filed the present review petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner vehemently contended that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and the she relied on Ex.A-1, which is the alleged gift deed and she also relied on Exs.A-4 and A-5, which are tax receipts. He contended that Ex.A-1, which is the gift deed, was not proved by the plaintiff as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence the same cannot be considered by this court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in MAQBOOL ALAM KHAN v. MST. KHODAIJA[1], RATAN LAL BORA v. MOHD. NABIUDDIN[2] and MIRTAHER ALI KHAN vs. CHAIRMAN, HOUSING BOARD[3]. He stated that the tax receipts under Exs.A-4 and A-5 are obtained just prior to the filing of the suit and hence, they do not prove the long standing possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He further contended that this court has taken into consideration that defendant filed suit in O.S.No.1423/1998 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession, therefore, the defendant has no possession over the suit schedule property. He stated that the suit schedule property in the present suit and schedule property in O.S.No.1423/1998 is different and hence the filing of the suit in O.S.No.1423/1998 cannot be taken into consideration to believe the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As this court has considered Ex.A-1, which is not proved in accordance with law and also Exs.A-4 and A-5, tax receipts, which are obtained just prior to the filing of the suit, and that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.1425/1998 filed on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is different from that of the present suit, there is error apparent on the face of the record and hence the judgment in S.A.No.226/2001 needs to be reviewed. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in SRINIVASIAH v. BALAJI KRISHNA HARDWARE STORES[4], K.M.SHANMUGAM v. THE S.R.V.S. (P) LTD.,[5], BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA v. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB[6], CHAPALA CHINNABBAYI v. NARALASETTI ANASUYAMA[7], MOHAMMED SHAFEEQ AHMED v. SAHEBZADA MIR TILAMAT ALI KHAN[8] and SBI v. S.B.GOYAL[9]. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – plaintiff supporting the impugned order and stating that this court in a suit for permanent injunction considering the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of the filing of the suit and as there was no better title to the defendant than that of the plaintiff and as the defendant himself filed the suit against the husband of the plaintiff herein, in O.S.No.1423/1998 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession, which included the present suit schedule property, allowed the second appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court, which decreed the suit and hence there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in MEERA BHANJA v. NIRMAL KUMARI CHOUDHURY[10], he contended that the ‘error apparent on the face of record’ shall be an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. In the present case, as there is no error apparent on the face of record, the review petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether there is any ‘error apparent on the face of record’ warranting review of the order dated 30-4-2010 passed by this court in S.A.No.226/2001? 6. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant. Her case is that her paternal father-in-law Khaja Hafeezaullah is the owner of a total extent of about 2000 sq. yards in the premises No.17-1-181 and out of love and affection, gifted an extent of 335 sq. yards in the year 1971 and also executed a memorandum of gift on 20.1.1974 evidencing the said fact and the plaintiff obtained a separate house no.17-1-181/A from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and got the property tax assessed and she has been in actual and physical possession over the suit schedule property. In support of here contention, she relied on Ex.A-1, which is the gift deed and also Exs.A-4 and A-5, which are the tax receipts. The defendant denied the plaint averments and admitted that as the husband of the plaintiff is in illegal occupation over the suit schedule in an extent of 150 sq. yards, he filed the suit against him in O.S.No.1423 of 1988 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court for recovery of possession and declaration of title for 1212 sq. yards of land. The defendant who was examined as D.W.1 in the present suit deposed that the property in the occupation of the husband of the plaintiff, who was the 2nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1423/1998, has passage towards east and the present plaint schedule in this suit is also having passage towards east. Based on the evidence on record, it was clear that the present suit schedule property was in the occupation of the plaintiff and the said property was also included in O.S.No.1423/1998, which was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Therefore, it is clear that there was cloud cast on the title of the defendant. 7. The plaintiff in order to prove possession relied on Exs.A-4 and A-5, which are the tax receipts and also Ex.A-1 gift deed, whereunder it was alleged that her paternal father-in-law gifted the property in the year 1971 and executed a memorandum of gift on 20.1.1974. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking injunction whereunder the possession as on the date of the filing of the suit has to be proved and title also can be gone into by the court incidentally. The plaintiff could prove possession based on Exs.A-4 and A-5 and it is an admitted fact that the defendant filed another suit in O.S.No.1423/1998 seeking declaration of title and possession, which include the present suit schedule property. This shows that there is cloud on the title of the defendant and that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Moreover Ex.A-1 is a document which shows past transaction. Therefore, in a suit for permanent injunction, where the plaintiff could prove her possession and the defendant has defective title, since he himself filed suit for declaration of tile and permanent injunction, the aspect of proof of Ex.A-1, need not be considered in detail and the said document was gone into by this court incidentally. Further the Apex Court in M.KALLAPPA SETTY v. M.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA[11] has held that plaintiff in possession of suit property, can on the strength of his possession, resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. 8. Considering these facts and circumstances and the judgment of the Apex Court, this court allowed the second appeal and I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the judgment passed by this court in S.A.No.226/2001 dated 30.4.2010 and the judgments relied on by the counsel for the review petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 15—09—2011 [1] AIR 1966 SC 1194 (1) [2] AIR 1984 AP 344 [3] 1996(2) ALT 674 [4] AIR 1999 SC 462 [5] AIR 1963 SC 1626 [6] AIR 2005 SC 592 (1) [7] 2006(1) ALT 293 (D.B.) [8] 2007(5) ALD 546 [9] (2008)8 SCC 92. [10] AIR 1995 SC 455 [11] AIR 1972 SC 2299