IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.849 OF 2011 Between: Juturu Satyanarayana Murthy …Petitioners A n d Valiveti Lakshmi and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.849 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.07.2010 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein the said appeal filed by the respondents herein, was allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.10.2009 in I.A.No.604 of 2009 in O.S.No.169 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, whereunder temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein, the plaintiff, filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.604 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. According to the plaintiff, his father Juturi Rama Krishna Murthy purchased the plaint schedule land in 1987 from Salagala Raghuramaiah and that the plaintiff has been cultivating the said land as a tenant on a maktha of Rs.10,000/- per annum. The petitioner claims to have raised maize crop in the suit land and alleges that the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff high handedly. The respondents/defendants filed counter contending that the plaintiff’s father Rama Krishna Murthy leased out the said land to one Daram Venkateswarlu and the said Venkateswarlu was in physical possession and enjoyment and the respondents also leased out their land which is situate to the east of the suit land to the same tenant Daram Venkateswarlu and that the suit is filed only to harass the defendants. The defendants further contended that the suit land is only Ac.0-95 cents but not Ac.0-97 cents as mentioned in the plaint. 4. During enquiry, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R-1 to R-8 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. On a consideration of the material available on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case showing that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and also balance of convenience lies in his favour and granted temporary injunction. The defendants preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the said appeal, holding that the plaint schedule filed by the plaintiff is not correct and the plaintiff failed to explain the discrepancy in the plaint schedule, as pointed out by the defendants, and non- joinder of one Ratnachand Balar as a party to the suit is fatal. Accordingly, temporary injunction was vacated. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision. 6. Ex.R-2 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 10.07.1987 under which the plaintiff’s father and one Ratnachand Balar purchased an extent of Ac.0-60 cents. As per Ex.P-1, pattadar passbook, and Ex.P-2, original title deed, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the plaintiff’s father owned Ac.0-37 cents in Sy.No.184/4, Ac.0-35 cents in Sy.No.5A and Ac.0-23 cents in Sy.No.11/1. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is agricultural land and he has been cultivating the same as a tenant of his father and he raised maize crop in the suit land. The defendants, on the other hand, would contend that the suit land and the adjacent land belonging to them are all vacant lands laid out into plots with roads in between. Exs.R-3, R-4 and R-7, the registration extracts of the sale deeds show the existence of roads of 18 feet width and 15 feet width. As Ex.R-2, an extent of Ac.0-60 cents was purchased by plaintiff and Ratnachand Balar jointly in Sy.No.184/4, whereas the plaintiff claims to be in possession of Ac.0-97 cents. The plaintiff also did not file any document to show division of property between his father and Ratnachand Balar. In view of the discrepancy in the extent of the land claiming to be in possession of the plaintiff and there being nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was, in fact, a tenant of his father and in view of the existence of roads crisscrossing the plots improbabalising the claim of the plaintiff that it is agricultural land and the discrepancy regarding boundaries as pointed out by the defendants, the learned Senior Civil Judge rightly held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour for grant of temporary injunction. The impugned order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim suspension granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd August, 2011 Lrkm.