THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1542 OF 2010 DATED:19-04- 2010. Between G.Furuva Reddy @ Madhava Reddy … Petitioner And 1.J.Kamala and six others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1542 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 30-01-2010, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, in confirming the order, dated 29-12-2008, in I.A.No.313 of 2008 in O.S.No.75 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, wherein the application filed for grant of temporary injunction, was dismissed. 2. The suit was filed basing on Ex.A3 sale deed claiming that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.7.13 gts. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish right, title and interest in respect of the property and the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.A3 are not tallying with the boundaries as shown in the schedule and therefore, prima facie the petitioner failed to establish that he has got title in respect of the property purchased by him under Ex.A3 and dismissed the application. A categorical finding has been given that the respondent was having land in S.No.187, which is situated towards north of the land in Sy.No.186/1. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a mistake in the sale deed, which has to be corrected. That cannot be accepted at this stage. The remedy is otherwise. He is bound by the recitals in Ex.A3 sale deed. The oral argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a mistake with regard to noting down of the boundaries so long as it was not corrected in accordance with law cannot be accepted. The trial Court rightly found that the petitioner failed to establish title in respect of the land covered under the schedule. Hence, the concurrent findings of two courts below are based upon material available on record and as such, the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Observations, if any, made in this revision are only for the purpose of disposal of the present revision and uninfluenced by any of the observations, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to old part heard and other cases. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:19-04- 2010 Hsd