ORDER :

1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 07.04.2022 in C.M.A. No. 10 of 2020 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada reversing the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A. No. 683 of 2019 in O.S. No. 2039 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 2039 of 2019 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Dhanekula Sitaramaiah and Dhanekula Paparao are father and son; that said Sitaramaia and Paparao partitioned their ancestral properties on 18.01.1940 and the same was registered; that out of said partition, total extent of Ac. 6.04 cents in R.S. No. 368/3 fell to the share of Paparao; that said Paparao sold away Ac. 1.56 cents to one Tullimilli Kotaiah and also sold away Ac. 1.24 cents; that remaining extent of Ac. 3.24 cents, vacant site, is in possession and enjoyment of said Paparao; that Paparao blessed with five sons and one daughter; that one son Dhanekula Bhaskararao died intestate on 04.03.2016 leaving behind him his wife, 3rd plaintiff and daughters, plaintiffs 4 and 5 as his legal heirs; that another son Dhanekula Ramalingeswara Rao also died intestate on 17.12.1995, leaving behind him his wife, 6th plaintiff and daughters, plaintiffs 7 and 8 as his legal heirs; that two more sons Dhanenuka Venkata Subbarao and Dhanekula Veera Raghavarao died issueless on 05.08.1987 and 03.10.1989 respectively; that Dhanekula Paparao died intestate on 30.10.1989 leaving behind his wife Kutumbamma and the plaintiffs as his legal heirs; that defendant is the owner of East-South corner land of plaint schedule property; that defendant tried to encroach into the plaint schedule property about 300 square yards and hence, the suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction.

4. Pending the suit, I.A. No. 683 of 2019 was filed seeking injunction restraining the defendant from making constructions. The averments in the plaint were reiterated in the affidavit filed along with petition and contended that defendant is making construction.

5. Counter was filed by the defendant denying the title of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. It was contended interalia that plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Defendant pleaded purchase of plot in his possession and also contended that late Papa Rao himself laid plots and sold one to his vendor and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Trial Court by order dated 17.03.2020 granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent and her men not to raise any construction in south-east corner of plaint schedule property pending disposal of suit. Against the said order, C.M.A. No. 10 of 2020 was filed. Lower appellate Court by order dated 07.04.2022 allowed the appeal and dismissed I.A. No. 683 of 2019 in O.S. No. 2039 of 2019. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri Sri Satyanarayana Dhara, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners being owners of property proved prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss sine qua non for grant of injunction. Counsel further submits that Appellate Court without considering the material on record, allowed the appeal and dismissed the I.A. Counsel further submits that Appellate Court failed to consider partition deed of 1940 and thus, prayed the Court to set aside the order in CMA.

9. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the lower appellate Court.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

(1) Whether the order in C.M.A. No. 10 of 2020 warrants interference of this Court?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs proved prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of injunction?

11. Suit O.S. No. 2039 of 2019 was filed for grant of perpetual injunction. Plain