THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2392 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03.03.2011, in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein against the defendant, is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 10.08.2010 in I.A.No.1417 of 2009 in O.S.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property of Ac.1.00 of land out of Ac.5.58 cents in D.No.511 of Dammaiguda village. Pending disposal of the suit, respondent filed I.A.No.1417 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. Petitioner herein contested the same. After due enquiry, the trial Court by order, dated 10.08.2010, allowed the application granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner- defendant filed C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 and by the impugned order the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner- defendant. 4. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court on 23.09.2011, directed that status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained with regard to possession of the suit property. 5. It is not disputed that the suit land originally belonged to Reddy Narsamma. Plaintiff is the brother of the said Narsamma. According to the plaintiff, the said Narsamma was deserted by her husband long back and ever since she was staying in her parents’ house and the plaintiff being her brother has been taking care of her and looking after her welfare. The plaintiff further pleads that Narsamma while in a sound state of mind executed a Will, dated 15.04.2007, in favour of the plaintiff and on the death of Narsamma on 13.05.2007, the said Will came into force and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. In support of his contention, plaintiff filed Ex.P3-copy of the Will; Ex.P4-death certificate pertaining to Narsamma and Ex.P5-land revenue receipt, dated 01.07.2009, showing payment of land revenue by the plaintiff and Ex.P6-adangal for 2006-2007 showing the name of Narsamma as pattadar and name of the plaintiff as the person in possession. 6. Petitioner-defendant would dispute the execution of the Will by Narsamma and would contend that after the death of Narsamma she being issueless her husband became the sole legal heir and that the defendant purchased the suit land from the husband of the said Narsamma under a registered sale deed on 17.06.2009 and that ever since he was in enjoyment of the same. In support of his contention, petitioner-defendant filed Ex.R1- sale deed; Ex.R2-cash bill, dated 05.09.2009, for purchase of fertilizers; Ex.R3-certified copy of prior title deed in favour of Narsamma and Ex.R4-ryot booking form issued by the Seeds company on 13.06.2010. 7. Plaintiff therefore bases his claim on the Will-ExP3 said to have been executed by the said Narsamma in his favour. The defendant on the other hand relies upon the sale deed-Ex.R1, dated 17.06.2009, under which he claims to have purchased the suit land from the husband of Narsamma. Ex.R1 was executed about two months prior to filing of the suit. Ex.R2-cash bill for purchase of fertilizers in the name of the defendant and Ex.R4-ryot booking form, dated 13.06.2010, are both subsequent to filing of the suit. Thus, except the sale deed-Ex.R1, the defendant has not filed any document in support of his claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit land. 8. Plaintiff on whom the burden of showing existence of prima facie case in his favour lies, relies upon the adangal-Ex.P6 and the land revenue receipt-Ex.P5 in support of his claim of possession of the suit land pursuant to the Will-Ex.P3, which according to him came into force on the death of Narsamma on 13.05.2007. The question as to whether or not the Will is genuine is a matter to be considered only on evidence that may be adduced at the time of trial. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would contend that Narsamma is stated to be a signatory as can be seen from Ex.P1-household card whereas the Will- Ex.P3 purports to contain her left thumb impression and the same constituted the suspicious circumstance. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand would contend that Narsamma was an illiterate and except signing her signature she does not know anything and therefore her left thumb impression is obtained in the Will-Ex.P3. 11. Obtaining the left thumb impression instead of the signature from illiterate woman would certainly be a better safeguard to ensure the genuineness of the document. The question as to whether or not the said circumstance of Narsamma affixing her left thumb impression in the Will instead of subscribing her signature would constitute suspicious circumstance so as to vitiate the document is a matter that arises for consideration only during the course of trial after necessary evidence is adduced, but not at this stage. Prima facie, the adangal-Ex.P6 and cist receipt-Ex.P5 support the plaintiff’s claim of possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit. Except filing a registered sale deed- Ex.R1, which was obtained just prior to filing of the suit, the defendant has not filed any document to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff was able to establish prima facie case in his favour as also the balance of convenience and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. In the circumstances, as the plaintiff has established prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit, the impugned order granting temporary injunction does not call for interference by this Court. 12. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th December, 2011. Tsy