IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6 OF 2010 Between: Neradigoma Laxman Rao, S/o. Veera Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Pankidi Lachaiah, S/o. Pochaiah ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2009, in C.M.A.No.4 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, whereunder and whereby, the interim injunction granted in the order, dated 30.09.2009, in I.A.No.164 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 2007, by the Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, was vacated. 2. The petitioner herein filed the Original Suit No.46 of 2007 for permanent injunction and I.A.No.164 of 2007 for temporary injunction, to restrain the respondent herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, stating that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas in Survey No.606, including three tobacco barons and a small house bearing H.No.12-78, situated at Mahadevpur Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District; that he has purchased the said land from one Jagarlamudi Chowdari and Jagarlmudi Srinivas Rao, on 06.08.2007, for a valuable consideration under agreement of sale; and that in pursuance of the said sale he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition were denied by the respondent stating that P. Ramaiah was the original owner and possessor of the land in dispute, and it is the ancestral property of P.Ramaiah; that after the death of P.Ramaiah, his son P.Pochaiah, who is the father of the respondent herein, became the absolute owner and possessor of the land in dispute. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner herein. On appeal the interim injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated by the appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale, the petitioner herein became the absolute owner of the land in dispute and he is paying taxes to the Government, which shows about his possession and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the impugned order. 7. This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised when the evidence is not based on any material available on record or perverse finding is given or if there is error in the order on the basis of the record. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any material available on record. 8. Granting or refusing of temporary injunction is governed by three well established principles, namely, prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. For seeking a temporary injunction, the prime consideration is that there must be a prima facie title, which is sine qua non for grant of injunction. Besides the prima facie title, the petitioner should also establish his possession over the property and that the balance of convenience has to be in his favour and if the injunction is not granted to him an irreparable injury would be caused to him. Ex.A1, which is said to have been relied upon by the petitioner, cannot be said to be a document of title because it is an agreement of sale and does not confer any title upon the petitioner and hence, the petitioner failed to establish prima facie title in respect of the land in question. Coming to the documents filed by the petitioner i.e., Exs.A5 and A6, which are the electricity bills and house tax receipts, they show about the possession of the property by the petitioner. But, at the same time, the respondent also filed Exs.B3 to B11, which are pahanies from 1983 – 1984 to 2005 – 2008, which would clearly go to show that the respondent is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. There cannot be any doubt that payment of tax to the Government is an evidence of possession. On the other hand, the respondent filed the documents Exs.B1 and B2, pattadar pass book and title deed, which would clearly go to show about his prima facie title, but not possession over the property. Therefore, the appellate Court rightly held that the petitioner failed to establish the prima facie title and also his possession over the land in question, by filing the necessary documents. The said order needs no interference by this Court in view of the fact that the finding is based upon the material available on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 04, 2010 MD