THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.329 of 2011 Dated:08.04.2011 Between: Budala Narayana alias Narayanappa, Son of Subbanna. ...Petitioner And Papireddigari Narayanaswamy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.329 of 2011 ORDER: Respondents herein instituted O.S.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, for permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant (petitioner herein) from interfering with their rightful possession in respect of items 1, 2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties. They also filed I.A.No.519 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for ad interim injunction. The trial Court on appreciating considerable documentary evidence (Exs.A1 to A16 and B1 to B18) came to the conclusion that the three ingredients for grant of injunction are satisfied and accordingly allowed the application. The petitioner’s C.M.A.No.27 of 2009 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC was also dismissed on 24.11.2010 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, against which the Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that both the Courts below erred in granting injunction against the co owners, and therefore, it is unsustainable. After perusing the orders of the Courts below, this Court is not able to countenance the submission. Respondents alleged that items 1 to 3 were purchased by them from Subbi Reddy and Maddi Reddy under registered documents. The vendors were the descendents of the family of Konappa and inherited the entire property after the death of their paternal uncle Siddappa and aunt Seethamma. When they were trying to plough the land, the petitioner objected with the rowdy elements necessitating the injunction suit. In opposition, the petitioner contended that he purchased ten ankanams with the house under an agreement of sale dated 03.02.1982 from Seethamma and that he perfected the title by adverse possession. He also denied the reversionary right of the vendors of the respondents. The Court below considered the documentary evidence and relied on Ex.A16, the extract of Form IB register issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, to hold that the respondents have prima facie proved their possession. So as to prevent any legal injury, the respondents’ application was allowed. The appellate Court again reconsidered the matter in correct perspective and affirmed the order of the learned trial Judge. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 08.04.2011 vs