IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5675 OF 2010 Between : K.Madhavachary .... PETITIONER A N D Keshav Memorial Educational Society Rep.by its Secretary. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5675 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.08.2009, in C.M.A.No.93 of 2009, on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 16.06.2009, in I.A. No.635 of 2009 in O.S. No. 816 of 2009, on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the property since 1968, and therefore, injunction has to be granted. For that the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in RAME GOWDA (DIED) BY LRS. V. M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (DIED) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER[1] wherein it is held thus: “It is the settled or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions”. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent is in possession of the property. 5. The revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it must be shown that the findings are perverse or not based upon any evidence available on record. It is a supervisory jurisdiction. It has to be seen whether the trial court acted within its limits or exceeded its jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction, and seeking temporary injunction, it is for him to establish his prima facie title, possession and balance of convenience. No document is filed to show about his prima facie title over suit schedule property. Similarly he has not filed any document to show about his possession right from 1968, except the Xerox copies of house hold card and Election identity card. Those documents cannot be looked into, for the purpose of proving his possession as they are self serving documents. Petitioner herein has not filed any tax receipt to show that he is paying tax to the municipality, showing the possession of the property. Therefore, the findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. None of the findings is shown to be perverse. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The decision relied upon by the counsel for petitioner has no application to the present facts of the case inasmuch as petitioner failed to establish his settled possession over the property in dispute. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J APRIL 29, 2010. YVL/ MD [1] 2004 (2) ALD 31 (SC)