THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1919 of 2010 Date:23.07.2010 Between: Begari Mala Narasanna. ..... Petitioner AND Chakali Pedda Eranna. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.V. Sivaiah Counsel for the Respondent: Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 26.02.2010 in C.M.A.No.36 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, confirming the order dated 12.10.2009 in I.A.No.156 of 2009 in O.S.No.54 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alur. I have heard Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner filed O.S.No.54 of 2009 for a permanent injunction against the respondent herein. Along with the said suit, he has filed I.A.No.156 of 2009 for temporary injunction. In support of his plea, the petitioner filed Exs.P-2 and P-3 i.e., pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of Acs.1.98 cents of land which was stated to have fallen to the share of his father. It is the case of the respondent that three brothers of the petitioner have executed an unregistered agreement of sale in his favour in the year 1998 and that in pursuance of the said agreement, he is in possession of the property. The trial Court after considering the documentary evidence gave a finding that the petitioner failed to prove his possession and that on the other hand the respondent is in possession of the property. This finding is mainly based on the fact that while the petitioner has not filed any document to show that as on the date of filing of the said suit he was in possession, the respondent filed Ex.R-2 copy of No.3 adangal and Exs.R-4 to R-10 land revenue receipts for the relevant period. The lower appellate Court, after considering the rival pleas of the parties, confirmed the said order of the trial Court. At the hearing, Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that in view of the pattadar passbook and title deed, the Courts below ought not to have rejected the petitioner’s application for injunction. However, I am unable to accept this contention because admittedly, the petitioner failed to file any document to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, he was in possession. As the possession is sine quo non for claiming injunction, in the absence of prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s possession, the Courts below are justified in rejecting his application for injunction. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the C.R.P. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2570 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd July, 2010 GHN