IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND (2ND) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5115 of 2010 Between: Dadi Ramaiah … Petitioner And: Mende Chinnaiah & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5115 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.09.2010 in CMA No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 05.06.2007 in IA No.130 of 2007 in OS No.29 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, where under the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction, was dismissed and ex-parte interim injunction was vacated. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of the suit land Ac.4.09 guntas in Sy.No.733/A in Appannapet village. The respondents/defendants are owners of the adjacent land, which is to the south of the suit land. The plaintiff alleges that the respondents are trying to disturb the boundary between two lands in order to encroach upon the suit land. The petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No.130 of 2007 for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The respondents filed counter contending that they are having Ac.15.01 guntas of land in Sy.No.699 adjacent to the suit land and they never interfered with the plaintiff’s possession of the land in Sy.No.733/A. The respondents further contended that there has been a boundary dispute between the petitioner and respondents and that the respondents made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for deputation of the Mandal Surveyor for demarcation and fixation of the boundary and the Mandal Surveyor inspected the land on 20.11.2006 and the petitioner objected for the survey. 4. In support of their claim, the petitioners filed Ex.P.1 to P.7 pahanies and the respondents filed Exs.R.1 to R.5 pahanies, Ex.R.6 challan showing payment of fees for survey of the land, Ex.R.7 letter address to the Mandal Revenue Officer and Ex.R.8 notice of survey issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. 5. As can be seen from the pleadings of both sides, the petitioner and the respondents are adjacent land owners. The petitioner land is situated in Sy.No.733/A and the respondents land is situated in Sy.No.699 to the south of the petitioner land. It is also not disputed that the parties are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. The only dispute between the parties is regarding the boundary between Sy.Nos.733/1 and 699. Exs.R.6 to R.8 supports the contention of the respondents that they made attempts to get the boundary fixed by necessary survey through the revenue and survey officials. The respondents alleged that though the Surveyor visited the land on 20.11.2006, the petitioner objected for the survey. The respondents also denied that they made any attempt to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the suit land. Thus, having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, which is only fixation of the boundary between two lands and there being no material to show that the respondents made any attempt to encroach upon the petitioner’s land or interfered with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the material on record shows that the parties are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands, the courts below have rightly refused to grant the temporary injunction. There is no scramble for possession, or any rival claims over the suit land. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision in ‘G.Trinadhaswamy v. Gandham Satyanarayana[1]’ wherein it was held that ‘possession of plaintiff up to a particular year proved by document and the defendant is not able to prove his possession for the subsequent period, the same state of affairs deserve to be presumed in a forward direction and the plaintiff can be presumed to be in possession and therefore entitled for temporary injunction.’ 7. In the above decision, the dispute related to four items of the suit property and the plaintiff claimed that they were purchased by their father and after his death, his mother came into possession and she executed a Will in his favour and after her death, suit property devolved upon himself and his brother. The defendants therein however contended that the items 2(a) and (b) were given to the first defendant’s wife towards pasupu kumkuma at the time of the marriage and regarding items 1, 3 and 4, first defendant’s father was initially lessee and after his death, first defendant continued as a lessee. Thus, it can be seen that both the parties have come forward with rival claims of ownership and possession in respect of self same property. It was therefore held that ‘the law provides for drawing of presumption forward and backward, particularly in the context of possession and if the plaintiff is in a position to point out that backed by his title, he is in possession of the property, up to a particular point of time, the same state of affairs deserves to be presumed in a forward direction.’ 8. In the present case, there are no rival claims in respect of the suit property. Even according to the defendants, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they contend that they never interfered with the plaintiff’s possession and the dispute between them is only regarding fixation of the boundary between two lands in two different survey numbers. The decision cited is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case. Simply because, the defendants threatened the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land, the plaintiff would not be entitled for injunction, unless it is established that there is interference or attempted interference by the defendants with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court having held that as per Exs.P.1 and P.2, the petitioner is the pattedar and is in possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, erred in not granting temporary injunction. The said contention is untenable, inasmuch as, the defendants do not dispute plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land. In the counter filed by the respondents, they have categorically admitted that the land of the petitioner and the respondents land are in adjacent survey numbers and the petitioner is in possession of his land, which is situated to the north of the defendants land in Sy.No.699. 10. There is no dispute regarding the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land. There being nothing on record to show that his possession is said to be interfered with by the defendants and in view of the fact that the dispute is only regarding boundary between two lands and nothing more, the dismissal of the application for injunction by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, does not call for interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.08.2011 bss [1] AIR 2006 AP 381