HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5072 of 2009 DATED 20.11.2009 Between: Mohd. Ghouse .... PETITIONER AND A.N.Subrahmanyam .....RESPONDENT O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 22.09.2008 made in C.M.A. No.155 of 2006 by the learned I Additional District Judge, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant against the orders dated 05.08.2004 made in I.A. No. 1667 of 2003 in O.S. No.622 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West & South, R.R. District, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the order under revision. Though the counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the Courts below committed a grave error in not taking into consideration Exs. R1 to R3 and photocopy of the receipt dated 08.07.2003 pertaining to regularization charges and assessment notice and property tax produced by the petitioner-defendant to prove his title to the property, the fact remains that both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiff, particularly Exs. P1 to P5, found that the respondent-plaintiff prima facie established his title. In coming to such a conclusion, the Courts below relied on the sale deed executed by Krishi Co-operative Housing Limited, un-registered will deed executed by his father and draft plan and also the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 26 of 1996, filed by the petitioner-defendant questioning the order passed by the Joint Collector, mutating the name of M/s. Krishi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, from whom the respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property, was dismissed. Though the writ petition filed by the petitioner-defendant questioning the orders passed by the Joint Collector, mutating the name of the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, the fact remains that the respondent-defendant neither filed any appeal nor approached the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Since the evidence placed by the respondent-plaintiff established his prima facie case, the court below refused to consider Exs. R1 to R3, which are merely photographs showing that the petitioner was in possession of the property. In that view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the orders under revision, passed by the Court below holding that the respondent-plaintiff had prima facie established his title to the property, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20.11.2009 bcj