( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 139 of 1990 on the file of the learned Munsif magistrate, Ponnur filed this revision petition against the order dated 1-8-1994 in C. M. A. No. 6 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla on the ground that the lower appellate Court failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case and committed an error apparent on the face of the record.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction against the appellant (sic. petitioner) defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. It is averred that the grand-mother of the plaintiff Dasari Durgamma purchased item-2 of the plaint schedule from Y. Seetaramaiah and others under a registered sale deed dated 11-12-1964; that in 1930 she encroached upon item-1 of the plaint schedule property, after the Mathukumalli Malakondarayudu the owner migrated to tenali; that she has been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same without any objection by anybody at any time; that the adverse possession of Dasari Durgamma is evident from the revenue records; that Dasari durgamma died on 21-1-1981; that during her life time she conveyed some of the properties including items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property; that as the plaintiff was then a minor, his guardians have managed the same; that after attaining majority, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same; that the defendant-appellant (sic. petitioner) is the owner of surrounding lands; that the defendant made an attempt to encroach upon the plaintiff s land with a view to grab the same; that the plaintiff gave a Police report; that the defendant kept quiet for some time; that the respondent (sic. defendant) is proclaiming in the village that he would evict the plaintiff from the plaint schedule land by force. Therefore the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 1302/90 under Or. 39 rules land 2 CPC for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in terfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

( 3 ) THE defendant-appellant (sic. petitioner) resisted the said petition by filing counter with the following allegations. The suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that Durgamma was never in adverse possession of the plaint schedule properties; that the original owner never lost his title to the property; that the will on which the plaintiff relies, no where states that Durgamma was in a absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property; that the rightful legal heir of Malakondayudu sold the property to the defendant-appellant (sic. petitioner); that the plan and its topography filed by theplaintiff are absolutely incorrect and that the petition may be dismissed with costs.

( 4 ) THE trial Court, after going through the entire material on record and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for both sides, opined that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendantand that irreparable injury would be caused to the defendant in case an interim injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff. Thus holding the trial court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff, with costs. Against that the plaintiff preferred appeal C. M. A. No. 6 of 1991 before the Subordinate Judge, bapatla.

( 5 ) THE lower appellate Court, after considering the material on record and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel for both sides, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and against the defendant so far as item-1 of the plaint schedule property is concerned and the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted to that extent. So far as item-2 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, the lower appellate Court came to th