HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2877 of 2011 Date: September 09, 2011 Between: Chittimilla Rukkamma … Petitioner And Kothagolla Anjaiah … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2877 of 2011 O R D E R: The plaintiff in O.S. No.142 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, filed I.A. No.956 of 2010 therein seeking grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession over an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.229/7 of Maddikunta village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District. 2. The trial court, having granted an injunction in the first instance, vacated the same by order and decree dated 13.12.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed C.M.A. No.04 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. By order and decree dated 07.6.2011, the appellate court dismissed the C.M.A. Hence, this C.R.P. by the plaintiff. 3. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of an assignment in her favour by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Special Laoni Rules. She filed revenue records in support of her case, marked as Exs.P-1 to P- 6. While so, the defendant contested the plaintiff’s case by stating that she had sold the land assigned to her to one Mulla Maiboob Sab under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.724/1989 (Ex.R- 1). It was his further case that an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas was allotted to his daughter-in-law, Krishnaveni, under Patta Certificate (Ex.R-2) by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that she was in possession of the same. Exs.R-4 to R-6, copies of the pahanis for the years 2005-’06 to 2009-’10 were marked in evidence in support of this plea of possession. 5. In the light of the conflicting entries in the pahanis, the courts below necessarily had to look further to ascertain the factum of possession of the suit schedule land being with one or the other party. Trite to state, it was for the plaintiff to prove her claim and entitlement for a temporary injunction on the strength of her own case by making out: (i) a prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable injury and injustice if injunction was not granted. 6. In the light of the facts aforestated, the courts below found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case in her favour. Further, as she had not disclosed that she had alienated the assigned land under Ex.R-1, the appellate court held that she did not approach the Court with clean hands. 7. Sri C.V. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, submitted that there was no resumption of the assigned land by the Government and in the absence of such proceedings being placed before the Court, the courts below ought not to have believed the subsequent assignment, if any, in favour of the defendant’s daughter-in-law. 8. These are aspects which would have to be gone into by the trial court on the basis of cogent evidence. For the purpose of grant of a temporary injunction, the plaintiff necessarily had to establish her entitlement, which she failed to do. The orders of the courts below holding to this effect therefore do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 09, 2011. BSB