Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.V. Subbaiah for Gowri Shankar Sanghi
For the Respondents: C.V. Mohan Reddy for V. Ramakrishna Reddy

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The plaintiff, M/s. Durga Kala Mandir, claims to be the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property since 1976, having made constructions such as bore wells, pipelines, a cycle stand, and other structures for the purpose of operating a theatre (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The plaintiff's case is that the property was purchased from the original owner, and the plaintiff has been enjoying possession openly and paying property taxes since 1976. The plaintiff also alleges that the original owner permitted construction and use of the vacant space to the north of the property (!) .

3. The defendant claims to have title to a specific portion of the property (1994 square yards) on the northern side, supported by title deeds and municipal records. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff does not have possession of the entire extent claimed and that the northern boundary includes the property of the defendant (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The courts below found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the disputed northern area and that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish exclusive possession or ownership over the entire property. The courts also noted discrepancies in the boundary descriptions and the absence of concrete proof of possession of the disputed site (!) (!) .

5. It was determined that the defendant holds prima facie title to the disputed site, and the plaintiff's claim for injunction against the true owner is not sustainable. The law supports that an injunction cannot be issued against the owner of the property when the plaintiff lacks clear title or possession (!) (!) (!) .

6. The courts emphasized that possession is linked to title and that a person claiming possession must provide detailed pleadings, including the basis of possession, ownership details, and conduct over the years. The plaintiff's failure to establish such detailed possession weakens its claim (!) (!) .

7. The courts also noted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant's ownership and had admitted to the defendant's title in certain documents. The plaintiff's attempt to seek injunction against the defendant, who is the owner, was therefore unfounded (!) (!) .

8. Ultimately, the appellate and trial courts dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction against the defendant, who is the true owner of the disputed property, and that the plaintiff's claim was based on insufficient and suppressed facts (!) (!) (!) .

9. The judgment underscores that in cases involving property rights, the primary consideration is the title, and possession alone does not suffice to obtain an injunction against the owner. It also highlights the importance of full disclosure of facts and documents by the party claiming possession (!) (!) .

10. The appeal was dismissed, and the courts confirmed that the defendant's title and possession negate the plaintiff's claim for injunction, emphasizing that no injunction can be granted against the true owner when the plaintiff has not established a clear and lawful right to possession (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court's reasoning, findings on possession and title, and the legal principles applied regarding injunctions against the true owner.