IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4273 of 2011 Between: Kankanolla Ashappa .. Petitioner AND Buggappa & another .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4273 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree in C.M.A.No.7 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet, dated 13.07.2011, dismissing the appeal without costs and confirming the dismissal of I.A.No.13 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2010, by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodangal, by the order, dated 08.09.2010. 2. The plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 2.06 guntas in S.No.128/A/A, Piddempally Village of Damargidda Mandal, claimed his father to be the original owner and possessor to whom he is the sole successor. The defendants were claimed to have interfered with the possession of the suit land on 25.01.2010 demanding him to sell the suit land. Another attempt on 30.01.2010 was claimed to have led him to approach the police and, hence, the suit and the petition for interim injunction. The defendants claimed that Ac. 1.00 in S.No.128/A/A was acquired by the Government for construction of a colony for members of Scheduled Castes. The defendants further claimed that the plaintiff himself sold his land by making plots to different persons who constructed houses and he also sold Ac. 0.15 guntas to the Christian Community for construction of a Church. The plaintiff was left with no other land, while his brother Ramulu donated his share to his son-in-law Hanmanthu. The plaintiff seeks to take advantage of the absence of mutation in the names of the purchasers and O.S.No.27 of 2009 was already filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and his son who attempted to interfere with the possession of the land. Hence, the defendants desired the petition to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 and R-1 to R-3 during the enquiry and while noting that an ex parte interim injunction was granted against the defendants which was being extended from time to time, concluded that Ex.P-9-the latest Pahani did not show the plaintiff to be the possessor of the suit land. The trial Court also found that Ex.R-3 showed that the plaintiff sold Ac. 0.15 guntas which was suppressed by the plaintiff. On a careful perusal of all the documents, the plaintiff was opined to have not established to be in possession of the suit property by the date of the suit, which led to the dismissal of his request. 4. In appeal, the impugned judgment was delivered after again referring to the factual background and confirming that Ex.P-9-the latest Pahani did not refer to the possession of the plaintiff, while Ex.R-3 showed sale of Ac. 0.15 guntas which was suppressed by the plaintiff. The documents do not disclose the plaintiff to be in possession of the entire suit property on the date of the suit. Consequently, the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal without costs. 5. In this revision, what the plaintiff contends is again relying on Exs.P-1 to P-9 as showing his ownership and possession of the suit property by the date of the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, desired a temporary injunction to be granted in his favour. 6. Sri Praveen Kumar Namaji, learned counsel representing Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. 8. The Title Deed and Pass Book, Exs.P-1 and P-2, or the Pahanies, Exs.P-3 to P-9, showing the plaintiff as the pattadar in respect of the suit property are of no great significance in deciding the prima facie proof of possession by the date of the suit. In Exs.P-3 to P-5, it was the father of the plaintiff that was mentioned as the cultivator, while the earlier entries in the Pahanies about the plaintiff being the pattadar and possessor were not repeated in Ex.P-9-the latest Pahani covering the date of the suit, wherein the plaintiff was mentioned as the pattadar but not the possessor which column was left blank. As to why such a change had occurred in the entries in the revenue records was not stated. Exs.R-1 and R-2, the copies of the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.27 of 2009, indicate that much prior to the present suit, there was litigation concerning the subject property between the parties with the alleged possession of the plaintiff being in dispute. There was no explanation about the brother of the plaintiff being entitled to a share or the manner in which he dealt with his share or the alleged sale of house plots by the plaintiff or the sale of plot for construction of a Church by the plaintiff, etc., though specific pleas were raised in this regard by the defendants. It is, of course, true that O.S.No.27 of 2009 relates to S.No.128/E/E, while the suit schedule describes the suit land as S.No.128/A/A, but the complaint of the defendants is more about not referring to the earlier suit in the present suit and the attempt by the plaintiff to invade into the possession of the defendants over the land covered by O.S.No.27 of 2009 under the guise of this suit. The specific pleas taken by the defendants remain unanswered by the evidence on record for the plaintiffs and the Courts below found Ex.R-3 transaction to have been suppressed by the plaintiff from the knowledge of the Court. Even if two views are possible on such evidence before the Court, where the findings of the Courts below are concurrent, interference with the same at the revisional level in exercise of a restricted jurisdiction will not be justified and the revision petition has to fail. 9. However, both the learned counsel stated that the suit is ripe for trial and in order to give finality to the litigation, the trial Court can be directed to expedite the trial of the suit on merits. 10. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs, but the trial Court shall make every effort to dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to both the parties to place their oral and documentary evidence before the Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (6) months. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4273 of 2011 Date: 26th December, 2011 KL