THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.6069 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner and respondent are brothers. The respondent filed O.S.No.223 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.5.19 cents of land in survey No.167 of Veldurthi Village. It was pleaded that the said land was allotted to him in the family partition. The trial Court granted an order of ad-interim injunction, to be in force between 06.07.2009 and 27.07.2009. Thereafter it was not extended. The petitioner entered appearance and filed counter- affidavit. He denied the allegations made by the respondent. It is also stated that taking advantage of his absence while serving in the Army, the respondent has manipulated the entries and got his name entered in the revenue records. It was further stated that on a representation made by him to the Revenue Divisional Officer, necessary steps were taken and a pattadar pass book was issued to him on 06.01.2009. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 17.08.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C.M.A.No.22 o 2009 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 03.11.2010. Hence, this revision. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the suit schedule property was the only item allotted to the petitioner in the family partition and that the respondent got the entries in respect of the land made in his favour, taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was working at various places in the armed forces. He contends that the situation that was obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit was reflected in Ex.R.2 and other documents and the lower Appellate Court did not take the same into account. Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the revenue records from the year 1996 onwards consistently reflected the name of the petitioner as pattadar and enjoyer and there was no basis for the trial Court in dismissing the I.A. He contends that the lower Appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and the order under revision does not warrant interference. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., the position that was obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit, or the I.A., as the case may be, becomes relevant. The plaintiff must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that as on the date of filing of the application, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. If he fails to prove that fact, it does not make any difference whether he was in possession of the property for decades earlier thereto. The respondent, no doubt placed sufficient material before the trial Court to prove his, prima facie, case. The fact, however, remains that Ex.R.2, a pattadar pass book, was issued to the petitioner herein on 06.01.2009 was filed long thereafter. The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, provides for presumption of the rights in favour of the person, who was issued the pattadar pass book. The respondent did not avail the remedy of appeal against Ex.R.2. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court was not justified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. Hence, the C.R.P., is allowed and the judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.22 of 2009, is set aside. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made either in the judgment of the C.M.A., or in this order. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.02.2011. GJ