THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5806 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.950 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that the respondents are encroaching into the suit schedule property, a vacant land, and are trying to construct an RCC building. Before filing the suit, he also submitted a complaint to the Police on 22-11-2008, and unable to resist the effort of the respondents, he filed the suit. He filed I.A.No.3098 of 2008, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for temporary injunction. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, and the I.A. was contested by respondents 3 and 4, by filing counter. According to them, the suit schedule property was assigned to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the proceedings of DK patta dated 19-01-1999 were filed by them. It is their further case that they constructed a house and are living therein by paying tax, etc. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 08-10-2009. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.33 of 2009 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The C.M.A. was dismissed through order dated 02-07-2010. Hence this C.R.P. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner based his claim on a sale deed dated 07-02-2000. It is pleaded that he purchased the suit site from two ladies, by name, Sheshamma and Govindamma in the year 2000. The copies of the registered sale deeds are also filed. He stated that the hut existing on the site collapsed, and he could not make construction due to paucity of funds. The respondents 3 and 4, on the other hand, pleaded that the land was assigned to them and they have constructed a house thereon. Even from a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the I.A., it is evident that the respondents have encroached into the plot. His complaint was more about the attempt of the respondents, to construct a house. The trial Court pointed out that, when even according to the petitioner, the respondents have encroached into the suit site, the question of his being in possession does not arise. Further, except that he filed the copies of sale deeds, the petitioner did not place any material to prove his possession. In contrast, the respondents 3 and 4 have filed the copies of DK patta and the house tax receipts. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have concurrently held that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case, for grant of temporary injunction. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-08-2011. KO