THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.NO.113 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.54 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale with one late Jhansi Lakshmi. The respondents are the legal heirs of Jhansi Lakshmi. The appellant filed I.A.No.284 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Initially, the trial Court granted an order of ad interim injunction. On contest by the respondents, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 29.01.2010. Hence, this C.M.A. under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant bases his claim on an oral agreement of sale. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff can claim possession of the property, if only there existed a specific recital as to delivery of possession in the agreement. Such a circumstance did not exist in the present case. The only alternative for the appellant to prove his possession was to place the oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. The appellant on the one hand and the respondents on the other hand filed extracts of adangals in their favour. Obviously there were conflicting versions. The trial Court has chosen to adopt the settled principle that in the absence of anything to the contrary, possession must follow title. As of now, the title rests with the respondents only. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. The suit however shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in the order in the I.A. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 04.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.NO.113 of 2010 Date: 04.08.2010 JSU