( 1 ) HEARD Sri Dasaradha rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant and Sri Gangarami reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff and also Cross-objector.

( 2 ) SRI Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant- defendant had drawn the attention of this court to the following substantial questions of law specified in Ground No. 9 (i) to (vii): (I) Whether the appellate Court below in granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondent herein for limited period against the Co-owner is bad in law or not? (ii) Whether the appellate Court is justified in granting permanent injunction to the respondent herein for a period of 3 years and also direct him to file a suit for declaration on the basis of possessory title having held in its finding that the respondent herein failed to show incidentally the right and title over the suit scheduled property and that he is in prima facie possession for succeeding the suit for permanent injunction is bad in law and perverse? (iii) Whether the Appellate Court is below is justified in granting permanent injunction based on mere on suspicion and possible bias on the appella