THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3103 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.20 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. 2. The petitioner filed Original Suit No.121 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni against the respondent for declaration of right over the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, he filed I.A. No.504 of 2010 seeking temporary injunction. Considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed the said order, vide the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Grant or refusal of permanent injunction is guided by three well established principles viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. It is the case of the respondent/defendant that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the petitioner/plaintiff by virtue of Ex.P2-registered sale deed dated 24.09.1994. In the said sale deed, there is a clear recital that possession of the schedule property was delivered to the respondent/defendant. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, Ex.P2 is a nominal sale deed executed for the purpose of security for money transactions. There is no challenge to Ex.P2-sale deed in the suit itself. Ex.P2 was allegedly executed in the year 1994 and for about 16 years, the petitioner/plaintiff kept quiet and now came forward with the plea that it was a nominal sale deed. Even if the sale deed is nominal, it is not in challenge in the suit. So, from Ex.P2, it is clear that the petitioner/plaintiff does not have any prima facie title at this stage, over the plaint schedule property. When the petitioner/plaintiff fails to establish his prima facie title, the question of granting temporary injunction does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the same is rightly confirmed by the appellate court. The order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 4. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that any observation made by the trial court or the appellate court or this court cannot be construed by the trial Court as a finding or observation, as they are only made for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application, and uninfluenced by any such observations, the suit has to be disposed of in accordance with law basing on the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by the parties. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 29.09.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3103 OF 2011 29.09.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3103 OF 2011 DATED 29.09.2011 Between: P.Srinivasulu …Petitioner And R.Rajasekhar Reddy …Respondent