1. This appeal under Order LXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code' for short) by the unsuccessful petitioner-plaintiff is directed against the order dated 28.05.2015 of the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, passed in I.A. No. 123 of 2015 in OS. No. 81 of 2015 (old numbers in vacation Court) [presently re-numbered as I.A. No. 278 of 2015 in OS. No. 505 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri] filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for granting a temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants, their agents, henchmen or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 2.00 guntas in S. No. 635 situate at Dabeerpura village of Medchal Mandal, morefully described in the 'B' schedule annexed to the petition. I have heard the submissions of Sri Y. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing Sri P. Raghavender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and of Sri Muddu Vijay, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-1st defendant. I have perused the material record.

2. The case of the plaintiff in support of the request for grant of temporary injunction and the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction, in brief, is as follows:

"He brought the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property. 'B' schedule property is a part of 'A' schedule property. The subject application is filed for grant of temporary injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property afore-stated. The 2nd defendant is the original owner of 'A' schedule property. The land in S. No. 635 is not a Government land. 'B' schedule land is situated in the said survey No. 635. The 2nd defendant who is admittedly the owner of 'A' schedule property having received consideration of ` 7,47,000/- from the plaintiff executed a sale deed dated 01.10.2004 in respect of 'A' schedule property, that is Ac. 6.10 guntas in S. No. 634 and Ac. 2.00 guntas in S. No. 635, which is 'B' schedule property. Though the sale deed was presented, on 01.10.2004, for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal, and the 2nd defendant had admitted execution as well as receipt of consideration, the Sub-Registrar had kept the document pending, without registering the document, as he was under the impression that the entire land covered by the said two survey numbers is a Government land. Therefore, the plaintiff approached this Court and filed a writ petition in WP No. 23276 of 2006 to direct the said Sub-Registrar concerned to consider the matter afresh and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed on 28.10.2010. Later sale deed dated 01.10.2004 executed by the 2nd defendant in respect of suit 'A' schedule property comprising 'B' schedule property was registered on 13.01.2011. While the matter stood thus, the 1st defendant had brought a suit against the 2nd defendant for recovery of money and had obtained attachment of 'B' schedule property herein. Later, by virtue of settlement before the Lok Adalat and pursuant to Lok Adalat Award, the 2nd defendant had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant on 13.08.2007 in respect of 'B' schedule property. Immediately after the purchase by the plaintiff, the plaintiff got enclosed the entire site with barbed wire fencing. The plaintiff is in possession of the property. The plaintiffs sale deed in respect of 'B' schedule property, which is the subject matter, is valid and binding on the defendants as the said land in S. No. 635 is admittedly not a Government land. Though the sale deed of the plaintiff was executed on 01.10.2004 it was registered on 13.01.2011; the registration therefore relates back to the date of execution by virtue of Section 47 of the Reg