M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule (1)(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short) by the unsuccessful defendants/appellants is directed against the order dated 20.09.2013 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy passed in IA. No. 2297 of 2012 in OS. No. 942 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.2.38 guntas of land in survey Nos. 9 and 10 of Allapur Village more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and petition.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants (the defendants, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs (the plaintiffs, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. Now the point for consideration is Whether the plaintiffs had made out valid and sufficient grounds and had satisfied the cardinal principles for granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property pending disposal of the suit? And, if so, whether the order impinged can be sustained under facts and in law?

4. POINT:

4.1 The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:- The father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 by name Muthyalu had purchased Ac.1.16 guntas of land in survey No. 10 of Allapur village under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1969 bearing document No. 43/69. The copy of the said sale deed is exhibit P1. Since the date of the said purchase, the said Muthyalu had continued in possession till his death. After his death, the first plaintiff along with the plaintiffs 2 and 4 and his family members had continued in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The first plaintiffs mother Akkamma had purchased the land in survey No. 9 of Allapur village in an extent of Ac.1.22 guntas under regular registered sale deed dated 30.07.1973. Exhibit P2 is the said sale deed. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the above said two extents of land since a long time and pattadar pass books were also given to them and their names were also entered in the revenue records including pahanies as pattadars and possessors. And, the land revenue is being collected from them. The documents filed by them disclose that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. They had entered into a development agreement with the 5th plaintiff for construction of residential complex over the suit schedule property. The 5th plaintiff had spent lakhs of rupees for obtaining permission and to prepare the land for construction and had ultimately taken permission from GHMC for construction of stilt plus five upper floors. The HUDA had also given the land use certificate in respect of the land, of which the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the absolute owners. However, the defendants have filed OS. No. 110 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judges Court, Ranga Reddy District and had further filed an interlocutory application in IA. No. 84 of 2012 in the said suit and had obtained ex parte ad interim injunction. But on appearance of 1st respondent therein and after hearing the arguments, the said ex parte order was not further extended. The defendants have filed an application before revenue authorities for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate claiming that they are the inamdars and that the suit land is not a patta land, but it is an inam land. Their request was rejected in respect of survey Nos. 7 to 12 including the suit schedule property. The appeal preferred by the defendants before the Collector was pending and in that appeal an ex parte status quo order was obtained without impleading the plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs got themselves impleaded in that proceeding. When the defendants had entered