HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5960 of 2010 Date: August 12, 2011 Between: Kolipaka Ramulu, S/o.Chandraiah, Aged 43 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kummarigudem village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal … Petitioner And NarlagiriNarsamma, W/o.Venkataswamy, Aged 44 years, Occ:Agriculture, Madikonda Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District … Respondent Order: The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.3255 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, has filed this civil revision petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 14.09.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.32 of 2008 by the learned II Additional District Judge, confirming the order dated 22.04.2008 passed in I.A.No.3255 of 2007 in O.S.No.580 of 2007, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Respondent herein had filed the aforesaid suit seeking perpetual injunction with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.274/A and 274/E and an extent of Ac.1.03 ½ guntas in Sy.No.273/A of Tharapally village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. It is her case that the land in Sy.No.274/A and 274/E was gifted by her paternal uncle Sri Kolipaka Sailu under a registered gift deed and she has purchased Ac.1.03 ½ guntas in Sy.No.273/A from its earlier owner Smt.Pulyala Rajamma, W/o.Malla Reddy by registered sale deed. Alleging interference by the petitioner herein, she filed the said suit and pending the suit sought interim injunction in I.A.No.3255 of 2007. The petitioner herein contested the said application, inter alia, stating that the respondent herein is not possession and she is not the actual owner and possessor of the subject land and it is he who is the owner and possessor. Before the trial Court no oral evidence was let in. On behalf of the respondent herein, Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked and Ex.R.1 to R.19 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. The trial Court, considering the documentary evidence on record, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the respondent established possession over the suit schedule property and granted interim injunction by order dated 22.04.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in C.M.A.No.32 of 2008, who, by order dated 14.09.2010 declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though no documentary evidence is filed by the respondent to establish her possession, the trial Court has granted injunction erroneously and the first appellate Court, without appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order granting injunction by the trial Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the title of the petitioner is based on the registered gift deed executed by her maternal uncle and the sale deed executed by the earlier owner and she has also filed documentary evidence to show that her earlier owners were in possession of the suit schedule property. In those circumstances, the trial Court has granted injunction in her favour and the first appellate Court rightly declined to interfere with the order of the trial Court. It is to be noticed that there is no documentary evidence reflecting the name of the petitioner herein as the owner and possessor; but on the other hand, ample documentary evidence has been filed by the respondent to show that the suit schedule property was in possession of her maternal uncle and her earlier owner, who have executed registered gift deed and sale deed respectively in her favour. In that view of the matter, the trial Court, prima facie, recognizing the possession of the respondent, granted interim injunction, which has correctly been upheld by the first appellate Court. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Courts below, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. However, as the suit is of the year 2007, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 12, 2011 MRR