THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2278 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.407 of 2007 in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0.09 cents. They have also filed I.A.No.596 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. The gist of their plea was that the suit schedule property was owned by the descendants of late Nagamallaiah and that it is in the joint possession of respondents 1 and 2 and other descendants. The first petitioner is said to be the daughter of one of the sons of Nagamalliah. The second petitioner is said to be an outsider. It was alleged that the petitioners are trying to interfere with the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property. On behalf of the petitioners, a counter was filed opposing the I.A. It was alleged that the suit schedule property was gifted to the first petitioner under a gift deed dated 7.07.1975 and ever since, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Through its order dated 7.07.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Thereupon, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.12 of 2008 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was allowed on 15.09.2008. Hence this C.R.P. Heard Sri P. Laxmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Narasimha Rao Davuluri, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction and the I.A., was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.A.1-Adangal and Ex.A.2-certified copy of plaint and plaint plan in O.S.No.292 of 2007 were filed. The petitioners, on the other hand, filed Ex.B.1-gift deed dated 7.07.1975 and Ex.B.2-family genealogical tree were marked. The trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the respondents failed to prove their possession over the land and dismissed the I.A. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction. It hardly needs any mention that the burden, to prove prima facie case and balance of convenience would be squarely upon the person, who seeks temporary injunction. An important aspect is that the possession as on the date of filing of the suit or the I.A. must be proved, at least prima facie, by the person claiming the relief of temporary injunction. Even if the respondents in I.A. are not able to prove semblance of title or legality of possession over the property, the Court cannot grant temporary injunction, unless the petitioner proves the necessary ingredients. The only document placed by the respondents before the trial Court in support of their plea as to the possession was Ex.A.1. That was an adangal, issued in the name of their grandfather. It is not even referable to any period, much less, to the year, in which the suit was filed. In contrast, the petitioners filed Ex.B.1, which is a registered gift deed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, possession would follow title. The lower appellate Court concentrated much upon scrutiny of the facts pleaded by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit. In the context of satisfying itself as to the existence of prima facie case, the lower appellate Court made the following observations. “Where the defendants prima facie failed in showing exclusive title to the property and where the plaintiffs established joint title to the property through Ex.A.1, the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case.” The approach adopted by the lower appellate Court does not accord with the settled principles of law. The burden was placed upon the petitioners, who are defendants, and hardly an effort was made to see whether the respondents have proved their possession. There is no clear or definite finding as to the possession over the suit schedule property referable to the respondents. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 4th August, 2009 Js.