THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1448 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.66 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, against the respondent, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. He has also filed I.A.No.636 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. It was pleaded that the respondent delivered possession of the property on 29.04.2000, after receiving the balance of consideration. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order, dated 30.09.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.50 of 2008 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appeal was allowed on 22.01.2010 and the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner, was vacated. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner filed an agreement of sale together with the endorsements said to have been made thereon running into about four pages. The basis for possession claimed by the petitioner is an adangal and sistu receipt said to have been issued by the Village Panchayat Secretary. He has also filed certain documents to show that he got a bore-well dug in the land. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff can claim possession of the property, if only there exists the recital to that effect in the agreement of sale, or in the subsequent endorsements. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no such recital. Hence, the very basis for the petitioner to plead possession ceases to exist. The lower Appellate Court has taken correct view of the matter, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:21.06.2010 GJ