JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the grant of an interim order of injunction pending a suit for permanent injunction, the defendants have come up with the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Mr. P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Avanigadda, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein (defendants in the suit) from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was described as a vacant site of an extent of 963.30 square yards in R.S.No.452/1 situate in Nidumolu Village of Movva Mandal, Krishna District. Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.337 of 2015, for an interim order of injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by an order dated 03-06-2016. 4. However, the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff in C.M.A.No.2 of 2016 was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit was granted. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have come up with the above revision. 5. A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent would show that the suit for permanent injunction was filed on the ground that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the forefathers of the sole hereditary trustee cum archaka of the respondent-temple; that the entitlement of the family was also confirmed by a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.277 of 1948, arising out of a suit in O.S.No.94 of 1946; that in the year 2007, the Endowments Department took over the temple and made necessary entries in the register under Section 43 of Act 30/1987; that the respondent-temple has always been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that by virtue of a Circular issued in the year 2008, the administration of the temple was handed over to the sole trustee cum hereditary archaka; that the sole trustee cum hereditary archaka raised a flower garden in the suit property for the use of the temple and has been in enjoyment; that however the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession forcing the plaintiff to come up with the suit. 6. 6. The petitioners/defendants took a defence that the land in question is a Grama Kantam site; that the defendants and their forefathers have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by keeping hay, dumping manures and tethering cattle; that the grandfather constructed a thatched house about 8 years ago and that the plaintiff had suppressed even the existence of the thatched house cum shop and that therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. 7. In the application for injunction, the plaintiff filed - (i) the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 05-01-1952, (ii) the Register maintained under Section 43 of Act 30/1987, (iii) the endorsement of the temple, (iv) approved plan and proceedings of Gram Panchayat dated 31-3-2015, and (v) original house tax demand receipt dated 21-01-2015. 8. The petitioners filed a copy of the adangal for fasli 1424 as Ex. R-1, the electricity bill as Ex.R-2, photos with C.D. as Ex.R-3, Google earth images of the village as well as the plaint schedule property as Exs.R-4 to R-8 and the attested copies of house tax receipts as Exs.R-9 to R-11. 9. The Trial Court, dismissed the application for interim injunction believing the Google images and also believing the entry in the adangal that the land was a Grama Kantam land. 10. However, the Appellate Court found that on the basis of Google earth images, no conclusion regarding possession could be reached. The First Appellate Court found that the entry in the Register under Section 43 of Act 30/1987 was reliable and that Exs.R-1 to R-11 are unreliable. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question is a Grama Kantam land and that there was overwhelming evidence to show the possession of the defendants. But I do not think that the petitioners can pray for a re-appreciation of the entire material by this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. The pleadings as well as all the documents produced on both sides are analysed threadbare by the First Appellate Court before coming to the conclusion that the temple deserved an order of injunction. As rightly pointed out by the First Appellate Court, Google earth images are not to be taken as documents to prove the possession. The pleadings as well as all the documents produced on both sides are analysed threadbare by the First Appellate Court before coming to the conclusion that the temple deserved an order of injunction. As rightly pointed out by the First Appellate Court, Google earth images are not to be taken as documents to prove the possession. An entry made in a statutory Register by the competent authority and the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, of the year 1952 actually clinched the issue, at least prima facie. Therefore, I find no material irregularity or illegality in the order of the First Appellate Court. In fact, it must be pointed out that the jurisdiction of this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is more circumscribed than the jurisdiction of this Court in a revision under Section 115 CPC. I find no justification for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. However, the suit may be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months. The applications, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. No costs.