THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6108 of 2006 Dated:18th January, 2010 Between: 1. Cheviti Pedda Venkateswarlu & Anr. ..... Petitioners AND Pikkili Venkatamma .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6108 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed in C.M.A.No.3 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge allowed the C.M.A. setting aside the order dated 16.12.2005 passed in I.A.No.1546 of 2005 in O.S.No.656 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.656 of 2005 are: The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.656 of2005. They filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of Ac.2.00 in Survey No.79, more fully described in the suit schedule. According to the plaintiffs, their father Pedda Venkateswarlu purchased Ac.4.00 under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1954 and since the date of purchase they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. They also moved I.A.No.1546 of 2005 under Order 39, Rule 1 and under Section 151 CPC seeking interim injunction. An ad interim injunction came to be granted in their favour on 31.08.2005. The defendant entered appearance and filed counter resisting the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order 31, Rule 1 and under Section 151 CPC. It is the plea of the defendant that she got the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed dated 20.06.1966 executed by Cheviti China Venkateswarlu and since the date of the gift deed, she has been in possession and occupation of the same. The plaintiffs filed two documents on their behalf to speak of their possession over the land as on the date of filing of the suit. Whereas, the defendant filed six documents to substantiate her contention with regard to her possession over the suit land. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and thereby proceeded to allow the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rule 1 and under Section 151 CPC, by making the ad interim injunction absolute, by order dated 16.12.2005. The defendant filed CMA No.3 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal assailing the order dated 16.12.2005 passed in I.A.No.1546 of 2005 in O.S.No.656 of 2005. The learned Additional District Judge, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case with regard to their possession over the suit schedule property and thereby proceeded to allow the appeal setting aside the Order dated 16.12.2005 passed in I.A.No.1546 of 2005 in O.S.No.656 of 2005, by a judgment dated 01.09.2006. Hence, this revision by the plaintiffs. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitiones/plaintiffs submits that the appellate Court has thoroughly misread the material brought on record and thereby erred in upsetting the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1546 of 2005 in O.S.No.656 of 2005. The learned counsel took me to para.9 of the judgment impugned in the revision to show that the appellate Court misread the relationship between the parties. A further submission has been made that the documents placed on record by the respondent/defendant do not support her version with regard to her acquiring the right over the suit schedule property under a gift deed. The learned counsel took me to the entries made in Ex.R.2 Pass book. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the respondent/defendant placed on record the title deed under which she acquired the right over the suit schedule property and also placed on record the pattadar passbook and extract of the Adangal and therefore, the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are based on sound reasons and therefore, they are not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Except marking the registered settlement deed under which their father stated to have purchased Ac.4.00 in Survey No.79, no document has been placed on record to speak of their possession over the land as on the date of filing of the suit. The respondent/defendant apart from producing the gift deed under which she acquired title over Ac.2.00 of land in Survey No.79, produced pattadar passbook and land revenue receipts. The documents placed on record by the respondent/defendant speak of her possession over the property in dispute as on the date of filing of the suit. The lower appellate Court has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to record a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case of their being in occupation of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Since the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are based on sound reasons, they do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Since the suit is of the year 2005, I deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, uninfluenced by any of the observations made either by this Court or by the lower appellate Court. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:18th January, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6108 of 2006 Dated:18th January, 2010