THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4938 OF 2010 Date: 03-11-2010 Between Gurijala Krishna Murthy …..Petitioner And Devineni Raghavendra Rao …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4938 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to revise the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District passed in C.M.A No. 1 of 2009 dated 30- 06-2010 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against dismissal of I.A No. 712 of 2008 in O.S No. 194 of 2008 filed for temporary injunction has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that one Garapati Guru Lakshmi is the owner of the schedule property. The petitioner - plaintiff claiming possession over the schedule property on the basis of oral lease from the said Guru Lakshmi filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent – defendant from interfering with his possession. The claim of the respondent – defendant is that the schedule property and some other properties are of one Smt. Gorijala Hymavathi, w/o Peraiah and her two daughters by name Garapati Guru Lakshmi and Kakarla Seetharavamma. After the death of Peraiah, his wife and two daughters succeeded to the property and partitioned the property on 15-02-2007 under a registered partition deed. In the said partition, the petition schedule property and some other landed property fell to the share of Guru Lakshmi, some other landed property fell to the share of Hymavathi and the other properties were allotted to the share of Seetharavamma. It is further stated by the respondent that on 06-03-2007 Guru Lakshmi agreed to sell the petition schedule property to him for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,68,000/- and executed an agreement of sale – cum- General Power of Attorney in his favour on the same day on receiving Rs.2,48,000/-. It is further stated that the respondent has paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- on 10-03-2007 for which he obtained a separate receipt and since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and on 19-07-2007, the General Power of Attorney holder executed a sale deed in his favour. The trial Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his possession over the schedule property except filing lease receipts Exs.P-1 to P-3 said to have been issued in respect of the lease amount. Since Ex.P-4 shows that he is cultivating the lands of Hymavathi but not of Guru Lakshmi and in Exs.P-1 to P-3 his name has not been mentioned as the cultivating tenant, he is not entitled to the temporary injunction. Holding thus, the trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 03-11-2010 ks