HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.782 of 2011 Date: August 11, 2011 Between: Devara Sammaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Aged 58 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-81, Gollawada Street, Mulugu village & Mandal, Warangal District and others … Petitioners And V.Subhadra, W/o.Sambaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ:household, R/o.Muchimpula village, Nallbelli Mandal, Warangal District … Respondent Order: Aggrieved of the order dated 27.12.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.83 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, this civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the appellants therein. Petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 2010 filed for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his possession over land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.1114 of Mulug village and Mandal, Warangal District. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that her husband has purchased the suit schedule property from petitioners 1 and 2 by an unregistered sale deed dated 02.03.2007 and he was inducted into possession and thereafter the said property is gifted to the respondent by her husband by a registered gift deed. Alleging interference by the petitioners with her possession, respondent has filed the said suit. Petitioners herein denied the allegations and stated that they were the original owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same in the year 1974 and they did not sell the same to the husband of the respondent as alleged. It is pleaded that petitioners 1 and 2 are in joint possession of the suit schedule property and have not partitioned the same. Before the trial Court, pending the suit, respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.69 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction. In the said application, Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and Exs.R.1 to R.29 were marked on behalf of the petitioners herein. The trial Court having regard to the entries made in the year 2007-08 and in view of the plea of the respondent-plaintiff accepted her possession prima facie and allowed the application by order dated 13.08.2010 granting temporary injunction. Although the petitioners herein filed an appeal against the said order before the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, the same ended in dismissal by order dated 27.12.2010. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the fact that the petitioners are the original pattadars of the land in question in view of their denial of sale in favour of the husband of the respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondent and the first appellate Court declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court without assigning any valid reasons. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by the trial Court are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. In this case, it is to be noticed that it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that her husband has purchased the suit schedule property from petitioners 1 and 2 on 02.03.2007 and he was inducted into possession. It is not in dispute that as per the entries made in the pahanies for the year 2007-08, the name of the husband of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded as possessor. However, on the other hand, no other document is filed by the petitioners subsequent to the year 2007-08. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, as confirmed by the first appellate Court. Civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 11, 2011 MRR