The central legal point established is the requirement to establish possession and title for a temporary injunction, and the significance of earlier partition in establishing prima facie case for injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Both the Civil ]Miscellaneous Appeals were filed by the appellants/defendants No.1,2 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.445 of 2016 in O.S No.41 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur (for short “the Court below”).

2. Since the issue involved in the two appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The impugned application in I.A No.445 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein before the Court below under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule land, and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and also restrain the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule property. After careful examination of entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has allowed the application and restrained the respondents and their men by way of temporary injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The trial Court also held that the petitioners shall not raise any constructions on it and the respondents are further restrained from alienating the schedule property by executing any documents in favour of third parties till the disposal of the suit. Challenging the same, the appellants/defendnats1, 2 and 5 have preferred the present appeals.

5. Heard Smt. N. Revathi and Sri Venakta Durga Rao, learned counsels appearing for the appellants and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree and Order of the court below is illegal, irregular, contrary to weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She further submits that the Court below erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against the appellant herein. She further submits that the court below went wrong in holding that in view of the boundary recital in Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 sale deed showing Ahmed Sait, who is 2nd plaintiff, the case of the appellant established that northern boundary property fell to his share and that the court below ought to have observed that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the northern boundary owner for all properties under Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 is 2nd plaintiff only and it is the case of the plaintiffs that they got Plaint Schedule Property to their share in the family partition deed said family partition has not been proved by the plaintiffs by adducing any cogent evidence. She further submits that the court below ought to have considered that the appellant is the bonafide purchaser of the property for consideration and without any notice of defect in title of their vendors. Thus their sale deeds are protected by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the plaintiffs have not filed single document to prove their possession for het schedule property. Thus they are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. She further contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case as on today since their plea of earlier partition is to be established by cogent evidence during the trial of the suit. In view of the physical possession of the appellant the balance of convenience is in his favour only. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to establish the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and that the Court below ought to have dismissed the petition for grant of temporary injunction and directed the plaintiffs to commence the trial of suit in order to establish their case.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denying all the contentions made by learned