ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.09.2023, passed in C.M.A.No.8 of 2022 by the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Khammam.

2. C.M.A.No.8 of 2022 was filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 21.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.02 of 2020 in O.S.No.347 of 2020 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal on 25.09.2023. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, petitioner/respondent herein preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner filed Exs.P1 to P5 before the trial Court to prove that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.347 of 2020 before the trial Court. Respondent did not dispute the veracity and genuiness of the documents. The first appellate Court ought to have appreciated that applying the presumption under law including that under the provisions of the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 2020 (Act 9 of 2020) has to be applied in favour of the petitioner as he is owner and possessor of suit schedule property according to Exs.P1 to P5. The first appellate Court assumed and held that after introduction of Dharani Portal there are mistakes in the revenue records. Exs.P4 and P5 are pahanies pertaining to the year 2014 and 2015. Ex.R1 is an unregistered agreement. The suit was filed on 13.07.2020 and Ex.R1 was brought into existence on 23.11.2021 as such the same cannot be relied upon for any purpose. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the first appellate Court.

5. Appellant/Plaintiff and Respondent/defendant are brothers. Appellant stated that he is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he got mutated his name in all revenue records and Tahsildar, Kusumanchi had issued R.O.R title deed and pass book vide Patta No.T26090120723 in favour of plaintiff. Respondent/defendant is elder brother of appellant/plaintiff. He got land in Sy.No.410/A admeasuring Ac.1.10 guntas which is located between item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. Respondent/defendant dug a well in his land which is abutting to southern boundary of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and also erected a tin sheet roof shed on south east corner of the land which is abutting to northern boundary of item No.2 of the suit schedule property. With a malafide intention, defendant tried to disturb the southern boundary of item No.1 by removing the boundary stones and the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and demanded the defendant for survey of their lands for fixing the boundary stones but the defendant was reluctant. Plaintiff placed the matter before the elders about illegal acts of the defendant and the elders advised the defendant to fix the boundaries but the defendant made deaf ear to their advice. On 05.06.2020, defendant tried to encroach item No.1 of the suit schedule property with an intention to grab the part of the land in item No.1, as such appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction.

6. Respondent/defendant filed a counter in I.A.No.02 of 2020 in O.S.No.347 of 2020 before the trial Court and stated that appellant/plaintiff and his mother colluded with each other and mutated the plaintiff name in the revenue records and the Tahasildar, Kusumanchi Mandal issued ROR Pass book vide Patta No.T26090120723 and title deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff. He further stated that defendant dug the well in the southern side long back and constructed tin shed long back and he is paying electricity charges regularly, as such the question of construction of shed and digging the well does not arise.

7. The trial Court held that appellant/plaintiff has got prima facie possession over the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. As per the third party affidavit, respondent is interfering into his possessio