A party seeking a temporary injunction must make out a prima facie case of possession in his favor.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the District judge, Srikakulam dated 28-12-1998 passed in C. M. A. No. 60 of 1996 dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the II Addl. District Munsif passed in I. A. No. 229 of 1996 in O. S. No. 216 of 1996 refusing temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the suit.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts as emerging from the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in the LA. may be stated as follows: the plaint schedule property belongs to one Gorle Jagannadhamnaidu, maternal grandfather of the petitioner who gave the plaint schedule properties to his daughter Ramudamma, the mother of the petitioner, under a registered settlement deed dated 10-6-1950, the registration extract of which has been marked as Ex. A-1. Ramudamma enjoyed the properties till her death. Ramudamma had four issues i. e. , two sons and two daughters. One of the daughters Appalanarasamma died unmarried and whereabouts of her second son Narasingarao is not known since so many years. The petitioner is the other son and his sister Gorle Venkataratnam who is the wife of the first respondent is the other daughter of said Ramudamma, who died in the year 1980.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner s case is that Gorle Venkata Ratnam, the wife of the first respondent i. e. , the sister of the petitioner never claimed the plaint schedule properties and she died in the year 1980. According to the petitioner, after his mother s death, his father enjoyed the property and after his father s death, he is in enjoyment of the properties inasmuch as his brother s whereabouts are not known, his another sister Appalanarasamma died unmarried and the other sister i. e. , wife of respondent No. 1 never claimed any interest in the suit properties. It is on this basis, the petitioner asserts that he has been in physical possession of the suit properties for all these years by paying land revenue and house-tax etc.

( 4 ) THE respondents counter this assertion and contend that after the death of the petitioner s mother, Venkatarathnam, wife of the first respondent and the petitioner succeeded to the properties from their mother Ramudamma. As the properties in question are stridhana properties of Ramudamma, her daughter Venkatarathnam, the wife of the first respondent, succeeded to the same and the said Venkatarathnam and her husband, the respondent No. 1 herein, have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties and after the death of said Venkatarathnam, the first respondent and her sons respondents 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the properties.

( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether the findings of the both the courts below that the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie possession in his favour suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or impropriety?

( 6 ) AS pointed out by the learned District Judge, the contention of the petitioner that his sister Venkatarathnam never claimed the properties appears false from the record. The very fact that he filed suit in O. S. No. 104 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Cheepurupalli (subsequently transferred to prl. District Munsif, Srikakulam) against the first respondent and his wife, venkatarathnam, belies this contention. Apparently, the petitioner has suppressed the facts relating to this previous litigation altogether. There is no reference to this litigation in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the petition. However, Ex. B-2, certified copy of decree and judgment in o. S. No. 352 of 1981 speaks for itself as to the previous litigation. This judgment shows that originally the petitioner filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction and subsequently amended the suit to incorporate the relief for recovery of possession as per the orders in I. A. No. 1059 of 1982. That suit was decreed for partition of plaint schedule land into two equal shares and i. A. was