THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4990 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order, dated 05.10.2010 passed by XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, in allowing C.M.A.No.10 of 2010 setting aside the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram in I.A.No.61 of 2009 in O.S.No.47 of 2009, and granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents herein. The plaintiffs, who purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2008 from one Chennuboyina Joseph Lurthu Raju S/o. late Bala Swamy, filed the above suit for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, they filed I.A.No.61 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction stating that the plaint schedule property was originally purchased by Bala Swamy, the father of Joseph Lurthu Raju, and Chennuboyina Venkata Narasamma in an extent of Acs.1.07½ cents i.e., Ac.0.01 cents in R.S.No.177/4C, Ac.0.26 cents in R.S.No.177/5B, Ac.0.12 cents in R.S.No.177/6B and Ac.0.68½ cents in R.S.No.178/2B. On the death of Bala Swamy, the schedule property and another property were partitioned between the said Joseph Lurthu Raju and his brother Suresh Sagar (defendant), by partition deed dated 27.01.2003. On the same date i.e., on 27.01.2003, the father of the said Joseph Lurthu Raju made another deed as Parata Dasthaveju before the Sub Registrar of Gannavaram for the exchange of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, which was already allotted to the said Suresh Sagar and his mother by name Narasamma and ‘B’ schedule property which was registered in the name of the said Suresh Sagar and his mother by name Narasamma was changed in the name of late Bala Swamy. From the said date onwards the schedule properties were shown as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the name of Bala Swamy. After the partition, the said Bala Swamy transferred the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of Joseph Lurthu Raju on 10.07.2004 under a oral partition and since then Joseph Lurthu Raju was in possession of the said property. On 11.11.2006 the said Bala Swamy died and since then Joseph Lurthu Raju succeeded to the property and he was enjoying the same. As the plaintiffs purchased the schedule property from the said Joseph Lurthu Raju, they claim to be the owners of the same. The respondent/defendant filed a memo praying to adopt the written statement as a counter in the present I.A and denying the averments made by the plaintiffs. The lower Court, after considering the documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.4 held that no connected relevant records or documents were filed by the plaintiffs to establish their possession over the schedule property and the documents filed by them are required to be proved during the course of trial and that except the tax receipts no other documents were filed to show prima facie possession over the schedule property, and accordingly dismissed the I.A by order dated 17.09.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs filed the C.M.A. The lower appellate Court, by placing reliance upon the pattadar pass books issued in the name of the vendor of the plaintiffs and the tax receipt, allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed in the I.A., and granting temporary injunction. Hence, this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the sale deed dated 03.11.2008, which is now produced into the Court shows that the vendor of the plaintiffs, namely, Joseph Lurthu Raju stated therein that his father acquired the property under registered sale deed bearing No.283/2003; that after the death of his father, himself and his brother orally partitioned the property and the schedule property fell to his share; that since then he is in possession of the same and that he obtained pattadar pass book and title deed. In the sale deed dated 03.11.2008 it was not mentioned on which date the oral partition took place between the vendor of the plaintiffs and his brother and on which date the possession of the property was taken and there is no mention as to the acknowledgment of handing over the title deeds and partition etc. In the absence of such proof as to the oral partition and exclusive possession and enjoyment by the plaintiffs’ vendor, the plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. In the absence of prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury established by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Till then, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, obtaining as on today, in all respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 01.02.2011 va