The revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the lower appellate court's order dated 27.11.2013 in C.M.A. No.3 of 2013, which set aside the trial court's temporary injunction order dated 31.01.2013 in I.A. No.438 of 2011 in O.S. No.93 of 2011 (suit for permanent injunction). [2000459520001]: 1)

Plaint schedule property: Ac.2-03 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.1942 of Kallakunta Colony, Prashanthnagar, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. [2000459520001]: 1)

Plaintiff's case: Owner and possessor via registered sale deeds No.334/94 (Ac.1-03 1/3 guntas) and No.3702/96 (Ac.1.00) from Vanga Narayana Reddy; cultivates dry and wet crops using others' borewell; defendants (father and son, neighboring owners) attempting to grab land due to rising values, interfering since January 2011. [2000459520001]: 2)

Suit filed on 13.05.2011 for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interference; notionally valued at Rs.5,000/-. [2000459520001]: 2)

Plaintiff's documents: Copies of sale deeds, pahanis (2006-07 to 2010-11), valuation certificate. [2000459520002]: 3)

Defendants' counter: Plaintiff has no title or possession; her husband (Dasari Kuntaiah) behind false claim; vendor Vanga Narayana Reddy (1/3 share in Sy.No.1942 total Ac.13-30 guntas) already alienated his entire share in four portions prior to plaintiff's sale deeds; detailed history of partitions, sales, exchanges, and prior suits (O.S. No.3/1981, O.S. No.36/1996). [2000459520003]: 4) (!) (!) (!) (!) [2000459520004]: 5) [2000459520005]: 6)

Defendants claim ownership of specific extents in Sy.No.1942 via partition, exchange, purchases; 1st defendant gifted Ac.4-27 guntas to 2nd defendant in 2009; plaintiff at best entitled to Ac.0-25 guntas surrounded by defendants' lands. [2000459520005]: 6) [2000459520006]: 7)

Prior litigation: O.S. No.36/1996 by plaintiff's husband (later added plaintiff) for specific performance/possession/declaration over part of suit land; trial court dismissed, first appeal allowed with possession direction, but no execution; second appeal pending. [2000459520006]: 7)

Cloud on title and possession; suit for bare injunction not maintainable without declaration. [2000459520007]: 8)

Lower appellate court set aside injunction due to title dispute, prior litigations, no possession established, discrepancies in revenue records. [2000459520008]: 9)

Plaintiff's revision arguments: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury; trial court correctly appreciated evidence. [2000459520009]: 10)

Defendants' response: Requires localization via Commissioner; no title/possession; limited scope under Art.227. [2000459520010]: 11)

Injunction is equitable discretionary relief to maintain status quo; requires clean hands, no suppression. [2000459520013]: 14) [2000459520014]: 15)

Plaintiff suppressed prior litigation over part of suit property; no pleading on possession thereunder despite first appeal success but no execution. [2000459520015]: 16)

Needs localization of Sy.No.1942, verification of vendor's share/alienations; cloud on title affects bare injunction suit. [2000459520015]: 16)

Prima facie case requires more than triable issue; serious question, bona fide claim; consider balance of convenience, irreparable injury. [2000459520016]: 17) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act (Ss.36-39,41) apply to temporary injunctions under O.39 Rr.1,2 CPC. [2000459520017]: 18)

Appellate court can interfere if trial court ignored principles; no prima facie case here. [2000459520018]: 19)

All three ingredients (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) required; even if satisfied, discretion allows refusal; security mandatory. [2000459520019]: 20) (!) (!) [2000459520020]: 21) [2000459520021]: 22)

Courts can impose terms/conditions, appoint receiver/commissioner pending suit instead of injunction. [2000459520023]: 24) [2000459520024]: 25) [2000459520025]: 26)

Limited scope of Art.227: No re-appreciation; only for jurisdictional error, patent perversity, gross injustice; sparingly exercised. [2000459520026]: 27) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

High Court declines interference with appellate order. (!) (!)

Directions: Continue ex-parte injunction (suspended appellate reversal) till suit disposal; trial court to expedite disposal within 3 months, day-to-day trial; consider receiver/commissioner/terms if needed without delaying trial. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)