IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.715 OF 2010 Between: K. Ampaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Ashabee and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.715 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order and decree, dated 14.12.2009, in C.M.A.No.15 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Adoni, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree, dated 16.03.2009, in I.A.No.59 of 2009 in O.S.No.14 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the Original Suit for grant of permanent injunction, along with an application for grant of temporary injunction, in respect of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.1- 21 ½ cents out of Ac.2-43 cents in Sy.No.173 of Kalugotla Vilage, against the respondents. Initially temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.59 of 2009 in O.S.No.14 of 2009, which was set aside by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Grant or refusal of injunction is governed by three well established principles viz., prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, if the injunction is not granted. The petitioner is claiming title in respect of the plaint schedule property from the vendors, who are the grand sons of one Eramma @ Peeramma. Though the petitioner purchased the said property from the grand sons of Eramma @ Peeramma through a registered sale deed but the petitioner failed to establish that how Eramma @ Peeramma has got the right to gift the property in favour of her grand sons. In any view of the matter that aspect of the case has to be decided in the trial Court after adducing necessary evidence. It was alleged that the petitioner was in possession of the property right from the date of his purchase of the plaint schedule property from his vendors. The petitioner had not filed any material to show that he was in possession of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit, except Ex.P-4, which is the true copy of No.3 Adangal extract with regard to the survey no.173, wherein the names of the sons of the Mohammed Hussain were noted, but not the name of the present petitioner. The trial Court placed reliance on Ex.P5 - positive photos with C.D. It cannot be taken as evidence, because the positive photographs coupled with the negatives have to be proved during the trial only. Therefore, there is no documentary evidence at this stage to show that the petitioner was in possession of the property by the date of filing of the suit. Having come to the Court, it is for the petitioner to establish that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property after purchasing the same. That evidence is lacking. That is the reason why the appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of injunction granted by trial Court. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 30, 2010 MD