THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4337 of 2009 Date: 13.08.2010 Between: Kavuluru Narasimha Rao … Petitioner and Tanagala Devasahayam and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4337 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. Despite service, none appeared for the respondents-defendants. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order, dated 24.08.2009, in I.A.No.409 of 2009 in O.S.No.204 of 2001, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Chatrai Mandal, for production of some revenue records. 3. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in the suit O.S.No.204 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit. 4. From a perusal of the impugned order of the Court below, it is obvious that the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction. The evidence of the plaintiff as well as the defendants was over and Exs.A- 1 to A-26 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked on behalf of the defendants. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking to summon the Tahsildar, Chatrai, for production of (1) Land revenue collection original register for R.S.164 for fasalies 1405, 1406 and 1407; (2) land revenue collection original register for R.S.167 for fasalies 1409; (3) Fair Adangal; (4) 10 (1) account original register; and (5) No.2 Adangal for fasalies 1402, 1403 and 1404. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff should have taken steps even during the course of his evidence and even if the said documents are produced, they do not show possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence the present civil revision petition. 5. It is to be seen that the basic requirement for the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction is to prove the possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The method and the manner in which such possession was obtained may not necessarily be required. Even the title also may not be very relevant, unless and until the title and possession are closely intertwined and cannot be separated. Otherwise, the aspect of possession alone has to be looked into by the trial Court. 6. Even if there is some contra entries made in the revenue records and, as a matter of ground reality, some other person is in possession, only that possession has to be recognized and later on it is for the aggrieved party to challenge such a possession on any grounds available. 7. From the affidavit filed by the plaintiff as well as the observations made by the Court below, it appears that the plaintiff was banking upon the contention that he has a valid title over the suit schedule property and thereby attempting to establish his possession. As already pointed out, the title and the possession are two different aspects. Unless and until the same can be segregated, by establishing the individual aspects, since this is a suit for mere perpetual injunction, it is only the possession as on the date of filing of the suit that is to be established, but not the title. Even if the aspect of title is decided, that would only be an incidental one and the law is well settled that even if a party, who claims perpetual injunction and loses the battle, still he has a remedy to file a suit for title independently and ask for recovery of possession. 8. Therefore, the Court below, in my considered view, had rightly recorded its findings dismissing the application and mere dismissal of the application does not amount to shut down of all the ways of the plaintiff to establish his case. 9. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4337 of 2009 13.08.2010 (Msr)