HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Civil Revision Petition No.5434 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 26.8.2010 in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed in part. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case are that the 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e., 0.75 cents in S. No.228/1A/4B3 and Ac.1.58 cents in S. No.228/1A/4C2 for valid consideration on 24.1.2009 whereas the 2nd petitioner purchased Acs.2.75 cents of land in Survey No. 228/1A/4B3 from its rightful owner for valid consideration and since the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that the Revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books to the 1st petitioner and original title deed to the 2nd petitioner. Adangals were also issued to the petitioners in respect the petition schedule property in proof of their possession. They further stated that even though the respondents have got no right and title over the petition schedule property, they proclaimed in the village stating that they would trespass into the plaint schedule property and interfere with their possession. Hence, they filed the suit seeking the relief of injunction. In that suit, they filed I.A. No. 368 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and under Section 151 of C.P.C. before the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg seeking temporary injunction. While opposing the I.A., the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit which was adopted by the other respondents. In the counter, the 1st respondent has stated that he purchased the petition schedule property about 30 years ago and he purchased another piece of property in favour of his wife and son from the rightful owner for valid consideration. He also stored manure heap and also laid bore well in the petition schedule property. He further stated that the petitioners are never in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and they alone are in possession of the property. Hence, the I.A. be dismissed. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, Exs.A1 to A11 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The trial Court, on a consideration of the documentary evidence on record, dismissed the injunction petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal in part granting injunction in respect of 0.75 cents of land and also item No.2 of the schedule property. But, the learned Judge however refused to grant injunction in respect of land in Survey No.228/1A/4C2. Hence, the petitioners filed the present revision. There cannot be any dispute that grant or refusal of injunction, is covered by three principles viz; (i) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case; (ii) 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 (iii) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. As far as prima facie case in respect of Acs.1.58 cents in Survey No. 228/1A/4C2 is concerned, both the parties have filed registered documents showing their title. So, at the interlocutory stage, even prima facie case cannot be decided in view of the fact that both the parties have filed registered sale deeds. This aspect of case has to be adjudicated after the evidence is let in by both parties. Coming to possession also, both the parties have filed the documents to show that they are in possession of the property. Therefore, title, prima facie case, balance of convenience and possession as on the date of filing of the suit are to be considered or resolved in the suit itself. Therefore it cannot be decided at this stage regarding grant of injunction basing on the documents filed by both the parties. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly not granted injunction in respect of the land in Survey No. 228/1A/4C2. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 19th April, 2011 pnb