THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6253 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.124 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in relation to the suit schedule property, an extent of Acs.15.22 cents of land in Survey No.85 of Itukallapadu Village, S.A.Kasi Nayana Mandal, Kadapa District. He is said to have purchased the property through sale deed, dated 09.07.2007, and that pattadar pass book was also issued on the basis of the purchase. He has also filed I.A.No.302 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondents. It was pleaded that the father of vendor of the petitioner gifted the suit schedule property way back in the year 1968 and that the sale in favour of the petitioner is null and void. The trial Court initially passed an order of ad-interim injunction. Thereafter, it dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 21.07.2008. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2008 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Badvel. The appeal was dismissed on 03.08.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner laid his claim over the suit schedule property on the basis of the sale deed, dated 09.07.2007, marked as Ex.P1 and the resultant title deed is marked as Ex.P2. No.1(B) extract and No.3 account extract were marked as Exs.P3 and P4 respectively. If the vendor of the petitioner had any semblance of title over the land, there should not have been any difficulty in granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the father of the vendor of the petitioner, who was the original owner, executed a registered gift deed in favour of Gramadana Sarvodaya Cooperative Society, Mallepalli Village way back in the year 1968. Ex.R1 is the registered gift deed, dated 04.01.1968, and the encumbrance certificate, Ex.R2, also vouched for the same. The petitioner doubted the status of the respondents herein vis- a-vis the donee under the gift deed. Even if there is any strength in the contention of the petitioner, the fact remains that the gift deed executed by the vendor of the petitioner was not revoked. These are the questions, which need to be examined in detail in the trial of the suit. This much, however, can be said that the petitioner does not have any prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The property is said to be under the enjoyment of the society. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court at this stage. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, directed that neither the petitioner nor the respondents shall create third party rights vis-à-vis the suit schedule property nor shall they alter the physical features thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.03.2010. kdl