Heard Sri Ramakrishna, representing Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for 159 appellants in all these civil miscellaneous appeals and Sri A. Narasimha Rao, representing Sri K. Ramesh Chowdary, learned counsel representing respondents.

2. C.MANo.215 of 2008 is filed by the appellant as against an order made in I.A.No.791 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.

3. C.MANo.216 of 2008 is filed by the appellant as against an order made in I.A.No.792 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.

4. C.M.A.No.217 of 2008 is filed by the appellant as against an order made in IANo.1134 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.

5. C.M.A.No.218 of 2008 is filed by the self same appellant as against an order made in I.A.No.1135 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.

6. In view of the commonality of the questions involved in all these civil miscellaneous appeals, these are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

7. The appellant filed I.A.No.791 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 aforesaid as against the respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

8. The appellant filed I.A.No.792 of 2007 in A.S.No.202 of 2007 praying for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code restraining the respondents from making any alienations either by way of sale or otherwise.

9. In the light of the reasons recorded in I.A.No.791 of 2007, I.A.No.792 of 2007 also had been dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, C.M.A.No.215 of 2008 and C.M.A.No.216 of 2008 had been preferred respectively.

10. The respondent in C.M.A.No.217 of 2008 filed I.A.No.1134 of 2007 in AS.No.202 of 2007 aforesaid praying for temporary injunction restraining the appellant in A.S.No.202 of 2007, his men, agents and followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and temporary injunction was granted in favour of respondent in C.M.A.No.217 of 2008 in view of the orders made in I.ANo.791 of 2007.

11. The respondent in C.M.A.No.218 of 2008 filed I.ANo.1135 of 2007 in AS.No.202 of 2007 praying for temporary injunction restraining the respondent in the said application i.e., appellant in A.S.No.202 of 2007 from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and the said application was allowed in view of the orders made in I.A.No.791 of 2007.

12. The respondent in C.M.A.No.217 of 2008 is Tatineni Purnachandra Rao and the respondent In C.M.A.No.218 of 2008 is Tatineni Purna Prasad. These Tatineni Purnachandra Rao and Tatineni Purna Prasad are shown as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the other C.M.As. i.e., C.M.A.No.215 of 2008 and C.M.A.No.216 of 2008.

13. Sri Ramakrishna representing Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for appellants in all these appeals Medasani Ramesh Babu would maintain that the learned Judge could not appreciate the documents relied on by either of the parties and the counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge could not appreciate EX.A-26, the certificate issued by the Secretary, Grama Sachivalayam, Pedapulipaka village. The learned counsel also pointed out to certain of the observations and the findings and also the evidence of P. W.1 and EX.A-5 and the Counsel also pointed out to Ex. B-1 and EX.B-8 and would m