A court may grant an interim injunction if the plaintiff has a good prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, the court has jurisdiction to grant the injunction, and the grant of the injunction is not an abuse of process of law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from an order passed in I. A. No. 1202/1994 in o. S. No. 1052/1994 on the file of the IV additional Judge, City Civil, Court, hyderabad, on 28-7-1995 dismissing the original plaintiffs petition for grantinginterim in junction.

( 2 ) THE appellant s case in short is that the respondents (original defendants) were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant s property being 2098 sq. years of land bearing Survey Nos. 76,78,79, 80 and 96 situated at Khairatabad Village, Anandnagar, hyderabad. The aforesaid suit schedule property originally belonged to the respondent No. 1. The same as purchased by TV. T. Gnananprakasam under a registered sale deed dated 13-3-1961. The purchaser was put into possession thereof since 1967. Thereafter, one Eunice James acquired the said property from N. T. Gnanaprakasam by virtue of a Release Deed on 26-4-1969 and the appellant acquired the same by virtue of Settlement Deeddated 17-8-1975 and, that since then the appellants are enjoying the same peacefully.

( 3 ) FURTHER, according to the appellants, respondentno. 2 with the help of antisocial elements was trying to interfere with the appellants possession in August, 1994 with a view to grabbing the property illegally from the appellants. The appellants, therefore, filed O. S. No. 1052/1994 and obtained ad interim injunction.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTNO. 2 resisted the petition for interim injunction by filing counter. No counter was filed by respondent No. 1. Respondentno. 2 alleged that the appellants, in fact, were trying to grab the land to the extent of 7300 sq. yds in Survey No. 80 and 81 which was held by respondent No. 2 for development in pursuance to an agreement for development dated23-4-1994 executed by respondent no. 3 in his capacity as the constituted Attorney of Respondent No. 1. Respondentno. 1, according to Respondent no. 2, was the original owner and pattedar of the entire land bearing Survey Nos. 76,78, 78,80 and 96 situated at Khairatabad Village. The total extent of the land covered by these survey number was 84 acres.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed O. S. No. 3644/ 1994 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained interim orders in I. A. No. 3919/94 against respondent Nos. 8 and 10. Thereafter, according to respondent No. 2, the appellants and one Sri Ramulu were trying to interfere with his possession and were trying to grab the property of Survey Nos. 80 and 81 admeasuring 7300 sq. yards.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS 5 and 6 filed a common counter and contended that an in junction had already been subsisting against the appellants in I. A. No. 376/90 in O. S. No. 55/90 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, which fact was suppressed by the appellants while obtaining tiie ad interim injunction. Respondents 5 and 6 denied the title in favour of N. T. Gnana Prakasam as also the Release Deed as mentioned in the petition for interim injunction. They also contended that these survey numbers were not contiguous and werenot forming part of the extent of 12540 sq. yards of land as claimed by the appellants. It is further contended by respondens 5 and 6 that they entered in to an agreement of sale and purchased 2420 sq. yards of land bearing survey Nos. 76, 78 and 79 situated at khairatabad Village for a total consideration of Rs. 3,63, 150/ -. Further according to them, they had to file a suit for specific performance against Respondent No. 1 and had to obtain an ad interim injunction from the V additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad.

( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 in the present case filed a memo adopting the counter of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

( 8 ) THE plaint scheduled property is described as follows; "all that vacant land admeasuring 2098 sq. yds. which is part of the land in survey Nos. 76,78,79,80 and 96 situated at Khairatabad, Anandnagar, Hyderabad " the boundaries have also been described in the schedule. It was arg