THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3894 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 22.07.2011, in C.M.A.No.05 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed confirming the order, dated 20.01.2011, in I.A.No.460 of 2010 in O.S.No.110 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, whereunder the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy.No.202/B of Bethigal village and Ac.1.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.204 and 205. Plaintiffs and defendants are admittedly brothers. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the plaint schedule property from B.Ramaswamy under a simple sale deed about ten years back and later the same is got validated under the Record of Ryots and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and that the revenue records were accordingly rectified and the names of the plaintiffs were entered into and ryotwari pass books were also granted in their favour. In support of their claim, they filed Exs.P1 to P4-pattadar passbooks; Ex.B5-pahani pathrika for 2009-2010; Exs.P6 and 7-attested copies of forms-13 (B), (C) issued by the Tahsildar. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as owners thereof ever since they purchased from B.Ramaswamy ten years back. Defendants, on the other hand, would contend that the suit property originally belongs to their father and he died intestate and consequently the suit property devolved on all the brothers, including the defendants, who are all the legal heirs, in equal shares. Defendants therefore dispute the claim of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the exclusive and absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and on the other hand contend that it is a joint family property and the plaintiffs and the defendants are all co-owners, having equal share in the suit property. 4. The pattadar passbooks filed by the plaintiffs were issued on 06.06.2007. Though they refer to ROR patta of the year, 1998, plaintiffs did not however file the original sale deed under which they claim to have purchased from B.Ramaswamy or any record to show that they made the sale regularized and validated under the provisions of the Act. They have also not filed the pahanis showing their exclusive possession and enjoyment since their alleged purchase, ten years prior to filing the suit. The pahani filed by them relates to only 2009-2010. According to the defendants, their father applied for mutation of his name in the revenue record by filing number of applications, including Ex.R1 of the year, 2003, wherein it is stated that he purchased the land. On account of the death of their father, all the sons became equally entitled and instead of entering the names of all the sons, plaintiffs got their names alone noted in the revenue records. When the plaintiffs are claiming exclusive and absolute title and possession in respect of the suit lands by virtue of purchase from B.Ramaswamy, they have to establish the same but in the absence of the title deed in favour of the plaintiffs, showing their exclusive and absolute title, the contention of the defendants that the suit land, forming the joint family property, cannot be brushed aside simply because the name of the eldest son in the family is entered in the revenue records. After the death of the father, the lands do not cease to be joint family property nor do the other sharers get deprived of their claim as co- owners. The Courts below have on proper appreciation of the material available on record, recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that the plaintiffs failed to establish their absolute and exclusive title, even prima facie, nor the exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit lands and therefore they are not entitled for temporary injunction. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the said concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs failed to establish the prima facie case for grant of injunction. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 14th November, 2011. Tsy