THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4014 OF 2011 23.09.2011 Between: Dhanekula Veerabhadra Rao …Petitioner AND Vanumu Manga And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4014 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.152 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu. He filed suit for injunction. He alleged that he purchased the suit schedule property on 30.12.1999; took possession of the same on 28.12.2002 and using the suit schedule property is a cattle shed and for storing paddy. The respondent filed the written statement opposing the suit. They claimed that one Thammana Veerraju acquired rights under an unregistered will dated 10.12.1967, Veerraju sold the property to the defendants under registered sale deed dated 17.11.2005 and that they are in possession of the property. After lapse of five years from the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.455 of 2011 to send unregistered will dated 10.12.1967 along with the registered sale deed dated 15.05.1978 for comparison of handwriting of Polabathula Satyanarayana; for determination of the age of the ink and stamp pad ink on the will. The plaintiff alleged that the will allegedly scribed by Polabathula Satyanarayana is a forgery and for that purpose it needs to be examined by handwriting expert by comparing handwriting of Polabathula Satyanarayana in the registered sale deed dated 15.05.1978. The trial Court after considering the objection raised by the respondents dismissed the application. Aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. The counsel for petitioner relies on State of Maharashtra v Sukhdeo Singh[1], O.Bharathan v K.Sudhakaran[2] and Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v J.Venkateswara Rao[3] contending that when the signatures of a person who is allegedly scribed the document are available for comparison, nothing would be wrong in sending the disputed signatures on the other document for handwriting expert. According to him, the determination of age of the ink on the will and stamp pad ink of the will by forensic sciences laboratory would disprove the version of the defendants that their vendor got the property under the will. There is no dispute that in a suit for injunction entire burden is on the plaintiff to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Even if the plaintiff fails to prove his title, still a strong proof is required to rebut his evidence if any i.e., possession. The proof of possession of immovable property is altogether is different from the title to the immovable property. Though the presumption that possession follows the title is always available to the plaintiff, it can always be dislodged by the defendants by adducing evidence. The petitioner’s sale deed is dated 30.12.1999 and admittedly plaintiff came into possession on 28.12.2002. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove and the question of sending document relied on by the defendants to handwriting expert does not arise. The trial Court appreciated the documents and the issues in correct perspective. No interference is called for in this revision petition. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.09.2011 Pln [1] AIR 1992 SC 2100 [2] AIR 1996 SC 1140 [3] AIR 1994 AP 90