IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5830 of 2009 Between: Pepakayala Ramakrishna and another. … Petitioners And Pepakayala Manieswara Rao and 8 others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5830 OF 2009 ORDER:- The plaintiffs are in revision against the orders of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dated 17.09.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.15 of 2009, whereby the appeal filed against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in dismissing I.A.No.4752 of 2008 filed for temporary injunction in O.S.No.1074 of 2008, has been confirmed. Plaintiffs filed the above suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their men and person claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property is absolute property of Pepakayala Ammayamma and the first plaintiff is the son and the second plaintiff is the daughter of Ammayyamma besides two more sons. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is an unmarried dumb person and on the death of Ammayyamma, her two sons Suryanarayana Murthy and Vara Prasad used to manage the family excluding the first plaintiff. Suryanarayana Murthy and Varaparasad obtained a settlement deed from Ammayyamma for the plaint schedule property, which was later cancelled on 14.09.2007 and executed a registered Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the first and second plaintiffs equally. The respondents 1, 6 and 7 filed counter, which was adopted by the other respondents, stating that the settlement deed executed by Ammayyamma was acted upon and the property was mutated in the names of Suryanarayana Murthy and Vara Prasad. Vara Prasad sold away the southern side of the property during his life time. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and the three portions of the house adjoining the road were leased out to the tenants and the dhaba house in the rear side was occupied by Pepakayala Manikyam, wife of late Suryanarayana Murthy. The trial court after considering the documentary evidence dismissed the I.A. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court held that as per the plaintiffs, respondents are threatening the tenants and as such, the tenants are contemplating to vacate the plaint schedule property. But no such affidavits of the tenants were filed about the threats exhorted by the respondents. Whether the plaintiffs can maintain the suit for permanent injunction when they are not in possession of the property is a matter, which can be gone into in the merits of the suit and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings of the courts below are that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property and the property is in possession of the third party who have not supported the claim of the plaintiffs about the threats made by the respondents. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the lower court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court, while deciding the interlocutory application. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 18th December 2009 LMV