The duty of the appellate court to evaluate the correctness of the trial court's discretion in interim applications, legal heirship rights, and discrepancies in possession claims.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against Decree and order, dtd. 16/9/2019 passed in C.M.A.No.27 of 2019 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC and STs (POA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short "the appellate Court") in reversing the order and decree dtd. 3/5/2019 in I.A No.119 of 2019 in O.S No.123 of 2019 on the file of VII Additioanl Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal and Smt G.M. Jyothi, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and Sri T.Sridhar, learned counsel representing Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Originally the I.A.No.119 of 2019 in O.S.No.123 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction and the same was dismissed on the ground that much hardship would be caused to respondent if any injunction is granted and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondent and as such the petitioners are not entitled for temporary injunction pending disposal of main suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred CMA No.27 of 2019 under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC before the appellate Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is the mother of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law and paternal uncle of the respondents No. 2 and 3. The husband of the 1st respondent by name Putta Ramesh is an Ex-service man. He was given D" Form Patta to an extent of Ac 1.00 cents in Sy.No.130/9 in Sowbhagyarapuram village in the year 1980 under Ex.Serviceman quota. But on verification, the said property is in Sy.No.135 but not in Sy No.139 and also varies extent of Ac2.58 cents. He further submits that name of the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the respondents No.2 and 3 mutated in revenue records and also issued pattadar passbook and title deed to an extent of Ac 2.58 cents in Sy No.135.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that during lifetime of Putta Ramesh, he sold Ac 1.08 cents out of Ac 2.24 cents under a registered sale deed on 28/10/2009 in favour of Avula Dhana Narasimha Rao @ Phani and Smt Avula Bhanu. The remaining extent is in possession of Putta Ramesh, the petitioner and other brother Srinivasa Rao i., e Ac 1.16 cents. The said Putta Ramesh died on 19/11/2011 leaving behind the respondents and his mother Rameswari. The said Putta Ramesh gave Ac 0.26 1/2 cents to the petitioner and another brother Srinivasa Rao. The allegation that the respondents are in possession of Ac 1.50 cents after alienation of Ac 1.08 cents by them is not correct. He further contended that the petitioner herein is in possession of Ac 0.1 1/2 cents and another brother Srinivasa Rao is in possession of Ac 0.15 cents. The petitioner by suppressing all these facts and filed this petition to drag on the proceedings.

6. On hearing, this Court observed that, admittedly, Putta Ramesh is an ex-serviceman, he was granted patta to an extent of Ac 1.00 cents in Sy No.130/9 of Sowbhagyarapuram Village. Thereafter, it was found that the extent is Ac 2.58 cents in Sy.No.135. Accordingly, the patta was rectified by the MRO, Pendurty. Out of Ac 2.58 cents Ac 1.08 cents of land was sold by the said Putta Ramesh to Avula Dhana Narasimha Rao @ Phani and Smt. Avula Bhanu under registered sale deed dtd. 28/10/2009.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that his brother Putta Ramesh given Ac 0.11 1/2 cents and Ac 0.15 cents to another brother Srinviasa Rao and that they raised house and residing in it. To substantiate his contention, he petitioner stated that his brother gave Ac 0.121 1/2 cents to him and AC 0.15 cents to his another brother in petition schedule property but no document was filed. When the respondents disputed the alleged g