ORDER :

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 14.07.2022 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam reversing the order and decree dated 25.11.2020 in I.A.No.138 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsannapeta.

2. Suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 was filed by plaintiff against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed I.A.No.138 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that plaintiff being owner, has been in possession and enjoyment of wet and dry land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. Plaint schedule property, originally, belonged to Namburu Lakshminarayanamma, W/o late Narasimhulu. The said Lakshminarayanamma leased out the schedule property along with other property to the plaintiff’s father-in-law, Bammidi Apparao on 28.04.1985 under ‘Ambaram Muchilika’ and he used to give Ambaram of 21 bags of paddy to Lakshminarayanamma per year. Lakshminarayanamma sold the schedule property to her tenant i.e. father-in-law of plaintiff on 25.02.1992 under an unregistered sale deed for Rs.87,200/-. Since then plaintiff’s father-in-law enjoyed the schedule property and he got the name of plaintiff mutated in respect of schedule property in revenue records. The revenue authorities updated the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendants are trying to trespass into the schedule property since the second week of July, 2020 and they are also proclaiming in the village. Defendants have no right over the schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed and also application for grant of ad-interim injunction.

4. 1st Respondent/1st defendant filed counter and the same was adopted by 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. In the counter, it was contended interalia that the revenue records relating to schedule property in the name of petitioner are fabricated. Petitioner suppressed the material facts and filed the suit. ‘Ambaram Muchilika’ pleaded by petitioner is forged document and prayed to dismiss the application. Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and got the same cultivated by engaging coolies.

5. During the course of enquiry, Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of petitioner. No documents were marked on behalf of respondents.

6. Trial Court on consideration of documentary evidence as well as pleading and other material available on record, granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner by order dated 25.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Lower appellate Court by order dated 14.07.2022 allowed the C.M.A and dismissed the Injunction application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Sudhakara Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that lower appellate Court went into merits of the suit and dismissed the application. He would also submit that while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, trial Court considered prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, however, appellate court failed to consider the same. He would also submit that the revenue records prima facie prove the possession of petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property. He would further submit that defendants also filed I.A.No.156 of 2020 for grant of injunction and the same was dismissed and against the said dismissal, no appeal was preferred.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would submit that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. The plaintiff, being a trespasser is not entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction. He