THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4337 OF 2011 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2011, in C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur in confirming order, dated 12.08.2010, passed in I.A.No.327 of 2009 in O.S.No.105 of 2009 by the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, wherein the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of interim injunction was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.105 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, which was filed for permanent injunction. Pending suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.327 of 2009 for interim injunction. 3. During enquiry, on behalf of the plaintiff, Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, Ex.R-1 was marked. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, granted injunction against the defendants in the Interlocutory Application and the same was confirmed in the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred the present revision. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lower Court went wrong in saying that the appellants have no source of title and the respondent has got source of title. The respondent himself admitted in his pleadings that the schedule property is ancestral property of the appellants and the finding of the lower Court that appellants have no source of title over the schedule property is wrong. The lower Court has not considered Ex.R-1, which shows that M.Ramudu is original owner and pattadar of land to an extent of Ac.5.00cs in S.No.561/2 and the land is D-form patta. Exs.P-6 and P-7 are filed after filing of Ex.R-1. The lower Court wrongly held that respondent is in possession and enjoyment of property under sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-2. 6. Grant or refusal of injunction is covered by three well established principles, namely, (1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. 7. With regard to the first aspect of the case, the plaintiff filed Exs.P- 1 and P-2, which are the registered sale deeds, dated 10.07.1990 and 04.03.2004, executed in favour of the plaintiff which show that the plaintiff has got prima facie right, title and interest over the schedule property. Even the defendants did not file a single document to show that they have got a right, title and interest over the property. Coming to the possession of the property, Exs.P-3 to P-7 are issued by the revenue officials, which show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants filed only Ex.R-1-adangal for fasli 1419 in respect of the petition schedule property showing that the father of the defendants was in possession of the property. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants failed to establish that they are in possession of the property. On the other hand, the documents filed by the plaintiff would clearly go to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. If the injunction is not granted, he will be dispossessed from the petition schedule property. Therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, as he has got a prima facie right, title and interest over the property. Considering the material on record, the trial Court rightly granted the injunction, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. None of the findings of the Courts below is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. As the findings are based upon the proper appreciation of material on record, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 03rd November, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4337 OF 2011 Date:03.11.2011 AMD