THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4736 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled under Section 115 CPC by the defendants in O.S.No.450 of 2008 on the ﬁle of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Respondent herein is the plaintiﬀ in the aforesaid suit. Pending the suit, claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.6.00 guntas covered by Survey No.1440 situated at Madikonda Revenue Village, the respondent ﬁled I.A.No.8 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim temporary injunction. It is her speciﬁc case that she purchased the said land from its original owner, by name, Bheemreddy Ashok Reddy on 03.01.2007 under a registered sale deed, which was marked as Ex.A.1. She has also ﬁled Exs.A.2 and A.3 – Encumbrance Certiﬁcate and Adangal Pahani respectively. On behalf of the petitioners herein, Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. The trial Court has rejected the said application. There upon, she carried the matter in C.M.A.No.46 of 2009 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, having noticed that the claim of the respondent/plaintiff is based on Ex.A.1 – registered sale deed, dated 03.01.2007, allowed the C.M.A by judgment, dated 20.06.2011. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a deed cancelling the sale deed, dated 03.01.2007, Ex.A.1, and there is also an agreement in favour of the petitioners. In this case, it is to be noted that once there is a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiﬀ, no subsequent unilateral cancellation is accepted. It is to be noticed that with regard to delivery of possession of the suit property, there is a recital in Ex.A.1, which is a registered document. But, there is no recital with regard to delivery of possession of the suit property in the agreement claimed by the petitioners, as such, the lower appellate Court in view of registered sale deed, Ex.A.1, has rightly not believed the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit property. In view of the documentary evidence, as appreciated by the lower appellate Court, I do not ﬁnd any error of jurisdiction in the impugned judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court, to exercise the power under Section 115 CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, as the suit is of 2008, I direct the trial Court to decide O.S.No.450 of 2008 itself, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni