THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5696 OF 2010 Dated:23.09.2011 Between: Meka Janakiramayya @ Buli Abbulu .. Petitioner And Smt.Vegulla Suryakantham and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5696 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.162 of 2010. He filed the instant Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15.11.2010 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2010 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. By the said order, the learned Senior Civil Judge reversed the order dated 23.09.2010 in I.A.No.579 of 2010 passed by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram and granted ad interim injunction prayed by the first respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff). The plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction in respect of two items of agriculture land totally admeasuring Acs.2.00 situated in Ramachandrapuram. She alleged that the property was purchased by her husband late Vegulla Venkata Rao under two registered sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2 and corresponding rectification deeds Exs.P3 and P4; and that after his death on 28.05.2003 she has been in continuous possession of the property. She also alleges that original pattedar pass book and title deeds were mortgaged for obtaining a loan. Therefore, she filed the notarized copies of the pattedar pass book and title deeds. She filed I.A.No.579 of 2010. The petitioner herein opposed the application for injunction. He alleged that late Venkata Rao executed an unregistered Will - Ex.R1 dated 22.05.2003 and that he alone is in possession of the property. Respondent No.5 herein produced another unregistered Will dated 24.05.2003 statedly executed by Venkata Rao in his favour giving vested remainder in the suit schedule property with life interest to the plaintiff. On considering the documents, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact of plaintiff being wife of late Venkata Rao is not enough to presume prima facie case in her favour; that the first defendant also failed to prove his possession and accordingly dismissed the said application. As noticed supra, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, reversed the order of the trial Court. The counsel for the petitioner/first defendant would submit that the appellate Court, having observed that the genuineness of the Wills produced by defendants 1 and 5 has to be gone into at the time of trial, gave a finding that Ex.R4 does not refer to Ex.R1, casting suspicion which is erroneous. She would submit that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving her possession and relied on surmises which ought to have been rejected by the appellate Court. Per Contra, the counsel for the first respondent would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate Exs.P1 to P7 and appellate Court had correctly come to the conclusion which does not warrant any interference. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is wife of late Venkata Rao. They lived together till the death of her husband on 28.05.2003. Late Venkata Rao purchased the suit schedule property under Exs.P1 and P2. He has also obtained pattedar pass book and title deeds as evidenced by Exs.P5 and P6, notarized copies thereof. These documents were marked by the plaintiff in her evidence without objection from the first defendant. It is a settled principle that possession follows the title. It has to be agreed by late Venkata Rao was in possession of the property till his death. The plaintiff being the Class – I heir – is the only heir, in all probabilities succeeded to the property and her possession cannot be doubted. On the contrary, except filing Ex.R1, the first defendant did not produce any evidence. When the plaintiff prima facie proved her possession, the other things would not matter at the stage of considering the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After considering the orders of the Courts below, this Court is convinced that the order of the appellate Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this Court observes that as the controversy is in a very narrow compass, the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, may take up the suit itself expeditiously and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 23.09.2011 KH