THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4086 OF 2011 Dated 25-11-2011 Between: Perapu Venkata Rao. ..Petitioner. And: Kemburu Yoganandharao and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4086 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.559 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District which has been confirmed in C.M.A.No.12 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District. Petitioner herein is the respondent in I.A.No.559 of 2006. 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in I.A.No.559 of 2006 and he is the plaintiff in the original suit. Parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner has purchased the same plaint schedule land under a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1993 for a valuable consideration of Rs.35,930/- and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The case of the respondents is that one of the co- owners granted him lease and on the basis of said oral lease, he has been in possession of the suit schedule property. It is also his case that the suit land is abetting their granite quarry of M/s.Rusteemjee Granities, and they are using the room in the suit land as store rooms and also as a dumping yard. Learned Junior Civil Judge basing on the documentary evidence filed under Exs.P.1 to P.7 came to a conclusion that Exs.P.1 to P.7 prima facie establish the title and possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. The appellate authority also on appreciation of the material on record came to the same conclusion that the petitioner has been in possession of the property and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-owner himself has granted lease to the petitioner herein and the said fact has not been taken into consideration. Admittedly, it is an oral lease and no documents have been filed in support of the case of the petitioner herein before the lower Court. There is nothing on record to show that impugned order is perverse. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the lower Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 25-11-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4086 OF 2011 Dated 25-11-2011