HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5325 of 2009 Date : 18.11.2009 Between : Dharavath Lachu. …..Petitioner And Chilusani Yadagiri. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5325 of 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan, aggrieved by the order, dated 05.10.2009, passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad in C.M.A.No.70 of 2008. 2. The dispute relates to the agricultural land admeasuring about Ac.5.11 guntas, covered by Survey No.740, 742 and 743, situated at Kodakandla village of Warangal District. Pleading that there is an interference by the petitioner/defendant, the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2008, for grant of injunction and he also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.70 of 2008 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., for grant of ad- interim injunction. The said application is considered along with another application filed by the petitioner herein in I.A.No.414 of 2007, and the trial Court has passed the common order, dated 28th of March 2008, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.70 of 2008, before the VI Additional District Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad. The lower appellate Court, after considering the documentary evidence on record, has allowed the appeal, granting injunction, by setting aside the order, dated 28th March 2008, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan. 3. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the lower appellate Court, in the absence of any material on record to establish the possession of respondent herein, has erred in allowing the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as much as the respondent was the plaintiff in the suit, the burden is on him to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case o f Syed Fahim Arif v. Rahmatunnisa Begum[1]. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment in the case of Shaik Ameer Johni v. Shaik John Ahmed[2], and also on the judgment of this Court in the case of D.Apparao v. D.Rama Mohanarao[3], in support of his argument that being the plaintiff, it was obligatory on the part of respondent herein to establish his prima facie possession over the suit schedule property, to seek injunction orders. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the absence of any such material on record, the appellate Court has erred in granting injunction. 4. I have perused the copy of the common order, dated 28th March 2008, passed by the trial Court and also gone through the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court while allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.70 of 2008. To prove his possession over the suit schedule property, the petitioner has filed Exs.P-1 to P-11. Ex.P-1 is the original pattedar passbook, Ex.P-2 is the original title deed, Ex.P-3 is the attested copy of adungal pahani for the year 2005-06, Exs.P-4 and P-5 are the copies of pahanis for the years 2002-03 and 1995-96 respectively. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is the original pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property, but it is the case of the petitioner that he came into possession of the said property by virtue of the lease granted to him on crop sharing basis. It is also the case of the petitioner/defendant that subsequently, the said land was sold to him under an agreement of sale and a part consideration was also paid. While allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the lower appellate Court has recorded a finding that Exs.P-1 and P-2, which are pattedar passbook and title deed, also establish possession of respondent/plaintiff. The lower appellate Court further recorded a finding that Exs.P-3 to P-5, which are pahani patrikas, also clearly depict the name of plaintiff in both the ‘pattedar’ column as well as in the ‘possessor’ column in respect of the suit schedule property. Though it is the case of the petitioner/defendant that he came into possession of the property by virtue of an agreement of sale, but the lower appellate Court has found that there is no recital in the agreement of sale, with regard to delivery of possession by the respondent herein, who is admittedly the pattedar of the land. Though there is no dispute with regard to the preposition of law laid down in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Syed Fahim Arif (1 supra), upon which, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, but, in the case on hand, the respondent/plaintiff has discharged his burden to show his possession over the suit schedule property. Even the judgments relied on by the learned counsel in the case of Shaik Ameer Johni (2 supra), and also in the case of D.Apparao (3 supra), will not render any assistance in support of his argument, in view of the abundant material on record to show that the respondent/plaintiff is undisputedly the pattedar of the land and though the petitioner herein is claiming possession pursuant to an agreement of sale, but in the absence of any recital therein with regard to delivery of possession and any other material to show that he came into possession of the suit schedule land, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th November 2009 N.B : Furnish C.C. in two days. (b/o) ajr [1] 2005 (3) ALD 545 (DB) [2] 1992 (1) An.W.R. 86 [3] 1995 (2) ALT 678