HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3177 of 2011 Date: October 29, 2011 Between: 1. Choppari Lingaiah & 2 others … Petitioners and Gouraboina Abbaiah … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3177 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners, being the plaintiffs in O.S. No.136 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, were unsuccessful in obtaining a temporary injunction both from the trial court as well as the appellate court. Hence, this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Heard Sri Chilumala Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 3. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No.136 of 2009 for declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.0.39 guntas in Survey No.123 of Siddannapet village, Nangnoor Mandal, Medak District, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession over the same. They filed I.A. No.495 of 2009 in the suit for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule land till disposal of the suit. By order dated 29.9.2009, the trial court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No.42 of 2009 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet. By order dated 05.7.2011, the appellate court dismissed the appeal. 5. It is the settled position of law that for grant of a temporary injunction pending the suit, the plaintiff has to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable loss if such injunction is not granted. Both the courts below, upon applying the above principles to the case on hand, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour. 6. The case of the plaintiffs was that they purchased the suit schedule land from the father of the first defendant under a simple sale deed dated 05.6.1989 (Ex.A-23/Ex.B-1) for Rs.4,000/-. The defendant is stated to have attested the said document as a witness. On the basis of this document, the plaintiffs claimed that mutation was carried out in the revenue records and they produced pattadar passbooks and pahanies before the courts below in support of their claim that they were in possession of the suit schedule land. However, perusal of this documentary evidence reflected that though they were in possession of some land in the subject survey number viz., Sy.No.123 of Siddannapet village, the extent did not tally with the land claimed by them under the simple sale deed (Ex.A-23/Ex.B-1). The first plaintiff was able to demonstrate that he was in possession of an extent of Ac.1.25 guntas of land in Survey No.123, while the second plaintiff was independently in possession of Ac.0.33 guntas and the third plaintiff separately possessed an extent of Ac.0.32 guntas.. Their case however was that they had jointly purchased the suit schedule extent of Ac.0.39 guntas under the simple sale deed. The revenue records produced by them however did not reflect that they were in joint possession of an extent of Ac.0.39 guntas. The total extent of land in Sy.No.123 of Siddannapet village is admittedly Ac.7.00 guntas. 7. In such circumstances, the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the suit schedule extent of Ac.0.39 guntas in Survey No.123 of Siddannapet village. As they failed to cross the very first hurdle of establishing their possession over the suit schedule land, the courts below correctly concluded that they did not make out a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction. This Court therefore finds no infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 29, 2011. BSB