HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3053 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-4-2010 passed in CMA No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda wherein and whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. 2. The petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in OS No. 103 of 2009. They filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.13 gts. situated at Yellareddygudem, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. In the above suit, the plaintiffs moved an application being I.A No. 632 of 2009 for temporary injunction. The respondents resisted the said application by filing counter. The respondents took the plea that the plaintiffs have already converted the lands into house sites and disposed of the same and therefore, they are not in possession of the suit schedule land. The trial Court having taken note of the Encumbrance Certificate, which has been marked as Ex.R2, proceeded to dismiss the said application. The petitioners/plaintiffs assailed the said order by filing an appeal being C.M.A No. 25 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Judge on reappraisal of the material brought on record did not find any valid grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and thereby dismissed the appeal by order dated 19-4-2010. Assailing the said order, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court failed to consider the material brought on record in a right perspective and thereby erred in recording the finding that the petitioners/plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule land. 4. I have gone through the Order passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 5. The petitioners/plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.2.13 gts. on the date of filing of the suit. The respondents/defendants placed on record Ex.R2-Encumbrance Certificate, which evidences that the plaintiffs have converted the agricultural lands into non-agricultural land and executed 23 sale deeds. For better appreciation, I refer para No. 13 of the Judgment passed by the learned Prl. District Judge and it is thus: “13. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs converted his entire land into house plots and sold to several persons under Registered Sale Deeds and that he sold more than 4,000 sq.yds. excluding the land for the roads and other developments and therefore, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. Defendants also filed Ex.R2 Encumbrance Certificate which discloses that the plaintiffs executed 23 sales. Ex.R3 discloses the sales affected by the defendants in favour of third parties. Thus, it is quite evident that both sides converted their respective lands into house plots and sold away to several persons. But the plaintiffs have suppressed this fact. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima facie possession over the suit land. Thus considered they are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings recoded by the trial court. Accordingly, the point framed; above is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs.” 6. The material brought on record discloses that the agricultural lands have been converted into the house sites and the petitioners/plaintiffs disposed of the plots by executing 23 sale deeds. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate court. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________ 23-07-2010 Mjl/*