1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 19-10-2009, in C.M.A.No.57 of 2007, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in confirming the order, dated 26-09-2007, in I.A.No.337 of 2007 in O.S.No.79 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Peddapalli.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondents (defendants) and the respondent herein is the petitioner (plaintiff) in the suit.

3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows:

The respondent herein filed I.A.No.337 of 2007 in O.S.No.79 of 2007 before the trial Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein, their agents, workmen, servants and labourers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein over the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.194, measuring Ac.6.39 guntas situated at Sankenapalli village of Velgatoor mandal stating that he is the owner and possessor and in occupation of the suit land having purchased the same from one Gone Kistaiah for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- on 08-05-1988 and that his name was recorded as owner and possessor in the revenue records, that he is paying land revenue and that he acquired title by adverse possession. 1st petitioner herein is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 herein are the sons of original owner Gone Kistaiah and without any right, title and interest, they are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, he filed the petition.

4. The 1st petitioner herein filed the counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated that her husband cultivated the suit land on behalf of Ponugoti Satyamma and by taking into his long occupation and enjoyment over the suit land, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli, issued Section 38-E certificate under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’), vide proceedings No.T/9040/73, dated 28-02-1975 and since then her husband was in enjoyment of the said land till his death i.e., on 28-06-1999 and after his death, the petitioners herein being the legal heirs of Gone Kistaiah succeeded the said property and cultivating the same and the name of 1st petitioner herein is also mutated in the revenue records as pattedar from 2005-2006 onwards and she executed a registered gift deed in favour 4th petitioner herein out of love and affection. When she obtained pahanies from the revenue office for the purpose of bank loan, they came to know that the name of the respondent herein is wrongly recorded as possessor from 1988-89 to 2006-07. In fact, he was never in possession and enjoyment of the property at any point of time, but in collusion with the revenue people, he got entered his name in the revenue records. She filed an objection before the Tahsildar, Velgatoor and the Revenue Inspector inspected the land on 05-07-2007 and conducted panchanama, wherein he recorded the possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner herein and not the respondent herein. Hence, she prays to dismiss the petition.

5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either side except marking Exs.A1 to A23 on behalf of the respondent herein and Exs.B1 to B36 on behalf of the petitioners herein.

6. The trial Court after considering the material available on record, came to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the respondent herein was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and accordingly granted temporary injunction. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the appellate Court. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the orders under challenge are correct, legal and proper?

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein (defendants) contended that the husband of the 1st p