THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4703 of 2010 Date of Order: 24-12-2010 Between: Madivada Ravi ..Petitioner And 1.Maddivada Sambasiva Rao @ Sambaiah and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4703 of 2010 ORAL Order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is to revise the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dismissing C.M.A.No.12 of 2008 dated 11-12-2008 and confirming the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.116 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2008, dated 08-09-2008 filed seeking temporary injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for perpetual injunction claiming that his grand father—G.Brahmaiah purchased the suit schedule property in the auction conducted by Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (KDCC Bank), which was mortgaged by respondent No.1, who stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the plaintiff from the bank and later the said Brahmaiah (grand-father of the petitioner) executed a gift deed dated 07-09-2007—Ex.P2 in favour of the petitioner and since then he is in possession which is evident from Ex.P1—possession certificate dated 18-02-2007 issued by the KDCC Bank in favour of the petitioner’s grand father. Therefore, respondents should be restrained from interfering with his possession, as they are causing obstruction and not allowing him to thrash the paddy. Contesting the same, the 1st respondent filed a counter stating that he does not know the auction conducted by the KDCC Bank and he came to know of the same only on receipt of notice in the petition and he filed Exs.R1 to R5—true copies of Adangals for Faslis 1413 to 1417; Exs.R6 and R7 are the tax receipts issued by Village Revenue Officer and possession of the property is with the respondents and no injunction can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The trial court dismissed the said I.A. holding that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience. Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that Ex.P3—sale certificate issued by KDCC Bank in favour of Brahmaiah (grand father of the petitioner) on 24-01- 2005 establishes his purchasing mortgaged property and who (Brahmaiah) in turn executed Ex.P2—gift deed dated 07-09-2007 in favour of the petitioner and Ex.P1—possession certificate dated 18-02- 2007 issued by KDCC Bank also establishes that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and further contends “title follows possession”. Learned counsel also contends that unless the respondents are successful in setting aside the sale, they cannot claim title over the property and not entitled to claim possession. Therefore, the lower court committed an error in not granting injunction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contends that Exs.R1 to R5—copies of Adangals clearly establish that the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property and which fact also supported by tax receipts—Exs.R6 and R7. It is well settled that for grant of temporary injunction plaintiff has to establish three cardinal principles, viz. 1. prima facie case; 2 balance of convenience and 3. irreparable injury, otherwise injunction cannot be granted. It is admitted that the plaintiff himself obtained loan from KDCC Bank by mortgaging the properties to which respondent No.1 stood as guarantor and he also mortgaged the property. For discharge of the loan, the properties of respondent No.1 were sold. According to the petitioner, his grand father purchased the suit schedule property, who in turn executed gift deed in his favour. From the pleadings of the parties it is not known whether the sale was through court or by way of auction. The respondents prima facie establish the possession over the suit schedule property. Exs.R1 to R5 are copies of Adangals and Exs.R6 and R7 are tax receipts. The Tahsildar of Avanigadda, who was examined as P.W.1 on behalf of the petitioner, in his cross- examination also admitted that Exs.R1 to R5 are true copies of Adangals issued by Village Revenue Officer and the said documents relating to the suit year and subsequent years,, which clearly goes to show that the respondents are in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit and also subsequent to the said date. Admittedly, out of three conditions for granting injunction, the first condition, viz., prima facie case is sin quo non, the plaintiff has to establish the other two conditions i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Once the petitioner/plaintiff failed to establish the balance of convenience and irreparable injury and the purchase of property through the Court or not also is not known, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the court below do not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court in dismissing the revision. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 24-12-2010 Murthy