ORDER :

1. Since, all these Review Applications are inter connected, they are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The present Review Applications are filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to review the Common Judgment, dated 21.09.2021, passed in C.M.A. Nos. 86, 71 and 73 of 2021.

3. I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is filed to set-aside the Judgment in C.M.A. No. 86 of 2021; I.A. No. 3 of 2021 is filed to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Judgment; I.A. No.4 of 2021 to suspend the Order and Decree passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 in O.S. No.9 of 2021 on 26.02.2021; and I.A. No. 5 of 2021 seeking Stay of the Order passed in the C.M.A.

4. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 3 of 2021 filed for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the Judgment under appeal, the said application is allowed. Since, main case itself is disposed of, it may not be necessary for us to pass orders in I.A. No. 4 and 5 of 2021.

5. The facts, in issue, are as under :

(i) Originally, the Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 9 of 2021 before the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, seeking declaration of right and title over the Plaint Schedule Property with consequential permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 to 5, who are the Review Petitioners herein.

(ii) The Plaint Schedule Property is a land admeasuring Ac. 1.53 cents in Sy. No. 3-B1 in Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Rural Mandal and District. Along with the Suit, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 35 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction against the Defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Initially, the trial Court grated ad-interim injunction till 17.02.2021. Subsequently, the Defendants filed counter stating that they have obtained permission for construction of nine [09] shops in subject property and accordingly started construction of the same. At that point of time, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No.63 of 2021 in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from making further constructions in the said property. The Plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 64 of 2021 in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 seeking injunction to restrain Defendant No. 3 from alienating Petition Schedule Property. Vide separate orders, dated 26.02.2021, the trial Court allowed all the applications filed by the Plaintiff, namely, restraining the Defendants from proceeding further with the construction, restraining the Defendants from selling away the property and also an injunction.

(iii) Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants filed C.M.A. No. 71 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No.63 of 2021; C.M.A. No. 86 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No. 35 of 2021; while Defendant No. 3 alone preferred C.M.A. No. 73 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No. 64 of 2021. All these three C.M.As are heard and by a Common Judgment, dated 21.09.2021, this Court dismissed the Appeals filed by the Defendants. Challenging the same, the present Review Applications came to be filed.

6. Before dealing with the contentions raised in the Review, it is to be noted that, in the Appeals filed, the case of the Plaintiff is that, subject property initially belongs to the joint family of one Narayana Reddy and his brothers. One Pedda Musali Reddy, who is the brother of Narayana Reddy, sold his share to one G. Nallamma by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 19.03.1948 [Ex.P1]. After the death of G. Nallamma, her son, namely, G. Chinna Konda Reddy died and, as such, his legal heirs divided the said land into plots and sold plot Nos. 1 to 9 admeasuring Ac. 0.15 cents in favor of the Plaintiff by way of 10 separate registered Sale Deeds, dated 24.06.2016 [Ex.P4]. It is said that, since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff became the owner of the property and constructed a shed bearing H. No. 1-14-