THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.731 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff. He instituted O.S.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from interfering with suit schedule property corresponding ABCD portion of the plaint land. He also filed I.A.No.91 of 2010 for ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same was dismissed on 16.06.2010. The matter was carried in appeal being C.M.A.No.11 of 2010. The Court of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, reversed the order of the trial Court. But by ordering status quo, prohibited the petitioner- plaintiff from making further construction of pillars. Aggrieved by the adverse portion of the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that his mother Alluri Chitteyyamma is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; she executed registered Will deed dated 23.02.1985 in favour of her husband Subbaraju, who was in possession of the property; after death of father, since 1996 the petitioner has been in possession of the property; and when the defendants tried to interfere with the possession he decided to construct a compound wall. He relied on the registered Will-Ex.P1 in support of his case. The defendants opposed the interlocutory application. They contended that ABCD plaint portion is not in possession of the plaintiff; it is a pathway continuing BT Road on the west and the land of Alluri people and the predecessors of the respondents on the east; and if the petitioner constructs compound wall they would be denied ingress and aggress. The trial Court on appreciation of Ex.P1-Will came to the conclusion that in the absence of linear measurements therein suit schedule property cannot be connected to the property bequeathed by petitioner’s mother in favour of his father. The first appellate Court, however, came to be conclusion that Ex.P1 shows ABCD portion of the plaint schedule property and therefore, prima facie, petitioner is the owner of the property. The counsel for defendants would submit that if the petitioner is permitted to construct compound wall they would be totally denied access to road and other lands. Indeed, as rightly pointed out to the Court, the averment to that effect in the counter affidavit filed in I.A. remained uncontroverted. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. As the issue is in a narrow compass, the trial Court may dispose of O.S.No.34 of 2010 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27th September 2011 RRB