THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5925 OF 2009 DATED:26-11-2010. Between D.Satyanarayana … Petitioner And D.Suryanarayana …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5925 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 21-10-2009, in A.T.A.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in confirming the order of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 31-03- 2009, in ATC No.20 of 2006, wherein the ATC filed to grant injunction restraining the respondent, his henchmen from ever interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property except under due process of law, was dismissed. 2. The revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are circumscribed. Unless the Courts exceeded its limits or the orders were not passed within the parameters of law, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. The dispute is between the brothers. The contention of the petitioner is that he is cultivating the land since ten years under the oral lease agreement between them, whereas the contention of the respondent is that he has not given the land in question to the petitioner on lease and the petitioner forcibly entered into the land and cultivating the land. 3. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner who filed the petition has to establish that he is the cultivating tenant of land in question. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the landlord to an extent of Ac.0.70 cents of land. The petitioner filed Exs.A1 to A7 which are said to have been obtained after filing of the Tenancy petition by the petitioner in the trial Court. In view of the fact that those documents have been denied by the respondent, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the same. He has not taken any steps to prove the same. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly have not placed any reliance on Exs.A1 to A7. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence. 4. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he stated that for some time, the respondent issued receipts evidencing payment of maktha. But those receipts have not been marked. If really, the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent, certainly, he would have filed those receipts and the same should have been confronted with R.W.1 who is the owner of the property. Those documents have not been confronted with R.W.1 in the entire cross-examination. The evidence of R.W.1 goes to show that when he raised objection to the concerned authority, the person who issued tax receipts was kept under suspension. Such is the case, there is possibility of manipulating the documents like Exs.A1 to A7 by P.W.1. The evidence of R.W.1 is very clear that P.W.1 is not a cultivating tenant. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is not safe to place any reliance on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, which does not inspire confidence. Therefore, his evidence cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he is no other than brother-in-law of P.W.1. He is a native of Kovvuru village. He has not stated in which year he came to the village of P.W.1. He was not personally present when P.W.1 was allegedly paying makta to R.W.1. Except the oral interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there is no other evidence to show that P.W.1 is the cultivating tenant. The trial Court rightly has not placed any reliance on the evidence and Exs.A1 to A7 and dismissed the petition. Both the Courts below have acted within the bounds and not exceeded its jurisdiction. None of the findings is shown to be perverse, illegal or contrary to law so as to call for interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:26.11.2010 Hsd