THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2007 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.4 of 2008 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction. They have also filed I.A.No.23 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. In contest of the matter, the trial Court granted temporary injunction through its order, dated 17.06.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2008 in the Court of V Additoinal District Judge, Rayachoty. The lower Appellate Court allowed the C.M.A., on 19.01.2009. Hence, this C.R.P. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has undertaken extensive discussion, before it granted temporary injunction and the lower Appellate Court reversed the findings without any basis. He contends that, even if there existed any minor discrepancy as to boundaries of the properties claimed by the respective parties, the same ought to have been dealt with in detail at the stage of trial of the suit and that there was no basis for setting aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court committed a serious error in comparing the boundaries of Ex.A.1, through which, the petitioners are said to have purchased the property, and Ex.B.4, encumbrance certificate, in stead of comparing the same with those contained in Ex.B.1, a document, through which, the vendor of the petitioners purchased the property. The petitioners based their claim on Ex.A.1, through which, an extent of Ac.0.65 cents of land in survey No.657/1 of Lakkireddipalli Village and Mandal was purchased. The total extent of land in survey No.657/1 of Lakkireddipalli is said to be Acs.4.09 cents. Out of that, Acs.2.98 cents is held by respondents 1 to 3 and Ac.1.11 cents was held by Smt.Hakeema Bee. The said Ac.1.11 cents of land is situated on the eastern portion of the survey number. That was sold in favour of Mayana Shafiulla on 20.10.1978 (Ex.B.1). Shafiulla, in turn, sold Ac.0.65 cents in favour of the petitioners represented by their mother. It appears that there was some discrepancy as to the mention of boundaries in Ex.A.1. The trial Court compared the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1, with those in Ex.B.4, encumbrance certificate. However, what becomes material is, as to which portion of the land held by their vendor i.e. Shafiulla, was purchased by the petitioners. The lower Appellate Court extracted the boundaries in Exs.B.1 and A.1 and found that there is discrepancy in the boundaries furnished by the petitioners in the suit schedule. A clear finding was recorded to the effect that the suit schedule property is different from the one purchased by the petitioners from their vendor. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.06.2010. GJ