THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No. 2486 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order, dated 25-03-2011 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereby and whereunder the order dated 21-01-2011, passed in I.A.No.696 of 2010 in O.S.No.184 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking temporary injunction, was confirmed. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.7.31 cents in Sy. No.120-C of Mugumangundi village of Holagunda Mandal. It is stated that the respondent managed the revenue authorities and got pattedar passbook and title deed in his favour. Then the petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Adoni. The R.D.O., after thorough enquiry, cancelled the said patta and consequently, the land was handed over into the possession of the petitioner. But however, on 26-06-2010, the respondent came to the petitioner’s land and threatened him to quit from the land and deliver possession of the same to the respondent. Apprehending dispossession from the land, the petitioner filed the suit for injunction along with a petition in I.A.No.696 of 2010 in O.S.No.184 of 2010. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2011. The said appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 3. Since the revision petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of the lower appellate Court in C.M.A., while interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, it must be shown that whether the findings arrived at by the Courts below are perverse or they are not based upon the relevant material or irrelevant material has been taken into consideration or relevant material has been over-looked. 4. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e. it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 5. The injunction petition was filed by the petitioner in respect of Ac.7.31 cents of land in Sy. No.120-C of Mugumangundi village of Holagunda Mandal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the schedule property under Ex.P- 5. As seen from Ex.P-5, it is a reliquishment deed, dated 22-06-1990. The petitioner is seeking injunction based his title under Ex.P-5. Prima facie, Ex.P-5 would show that he has got right, title and interest over some property. Whether the property covered by Ex.A-5 is the schedule property or not cannot be decided at this stage. 6. Similarly, the respondent has not filed any document to show that he got right, title or interest over the schedule property except having pattedar passbook. Though it is the case of the respondent that he purchased property under agreement of sale and is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, but agreement of sale does not confer any title. But he is found to be in the possession of plaint schedule property. 7. The petitioner filed one cist receipt, Ex.P-1, which does not show for which year he is in possession of the property. He has not filed no other document to show about his possession. Whereas the respondent filed Exs.R-9 to R-14, which are the cist receipts, which would clearly go to show that the respondent is in possession of the property prior to the date of the filing of the suit. Similarly the respondent also filed Exs.R-1 to R-8, adangals for the faslis 1397, 1405, 1415 to 1419, respectively, which clearly go to show that he has been in possession of the property. 8. No doubt, the R.D.O. cancelled the patta granted in favour of the respondent, but, admittedly, the respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector challenging the order of cancellation of patta and the same is pending consideration. So the dispute with regard to the title of the schedule property has to be decided only after completion of trial of the main suit. 9. If the injunction is not granted, no irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner because if really he has got right, title and interest over the schedule property, certainly he can seek damages from the respondent for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the injunction application and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 10. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the material on record. In the absence of illegal or incorrect findings, this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below, which are based upon the proper appreciation of the material on record. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr