IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case of possession and ownership, admissibility of documents and admissions, and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in granting injunctions.

ORDER

R Raghunandan Rao, J. - Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner representing on behalf of Sri O. Uday Kumar, Sri Korrapati Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. For the ease of reference, the parties are being referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.

3. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.23 of 2023 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and the persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over plaint 'A' and plaint 'B' schedule properties. Plaint 'A' schedule property is again divided into Item No. 1 and Item No.2. Item No.1 is said to be land admeasuring 1210 sq.yards and Item No.2 is said to be land admeasuring 403.33 sq.yards. Both these items are said to be situated in Sy.No.216, 219/10, 221/1 and 221/2 of Vedanthapuram Revenue Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. Plaint 'B' schedule property is said to be 1613.33 sq.yards of land situated in Sy.No.216, 219/10, 221/1 and 221/2. The boundaries for these items 1 and 2 of plaint A schedule and the boundaries for plaint 'B' schedule are also set out in the respective schedules.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the respondents 1 and 2 along with their brother Sri G. Damodar Reddy were the owners of various extents of land. These three persons are said to have sold some of the lands, owned by them, by way of various deeds of sale, which were marked, for the purpose of reference, in the interlocutory application as exhibits P.4, P.5 and P.6. Under sale deed dated 28.11.1994, marked as Ex.P.5 an extent of Ac.2.52 cents in Sy.No.221/2 was sold to one Swarna Builders. By a sale deed dated 09.04.1997 marked as Ex.P.4 an extent of Ac.2.04 cents, in Sy.No.221/2 were sold to Sri B. Gopinadh. By a sale deed dated 09.04.1997 marked as Ex.P.6 an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.221 and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.216 was sold to Sri Muni Krishna Reddy. All the purchasers in the above sale deeds are said to have conveyed and alienated the respective lands in favour of Krishna Murthy and Smt. Mamatha. The aforesaid Krishna Murthy and Mamatha are said to have entered into a development agreement with the plaintiff herein, by way of document Nos. 5968 of 2021 and 2308 of 2022.

5. The plaintiffs having entered into the development agreement had undertaken development of the aforesaid lands. Since an unauthorised lay out had been made in this land, L.Rs clearances were obtained from the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority between 14.09.2021 to 29.09.2021 and individual building permissions were obtained in the plots, in the regularised lay out between 25.09.2021 to 22.08.2022 and construction of houses were commenced in these plots.

6. As the Gram Panchayat, allegedly under the influence of the defendants, was interfering with the construction activity of the plaintiff, a writ petition bearing W.P.No.36190 of 2022 was filed on 07.11.2022 complying of the said interference. At that stage, the Gram Panchayat had stated that certain notices had already been issued to the plaintiff about the unauthorised construction and the matter restricted there. In a parallel proceeding, the defendant herein moved O.S.No.99 of 2022 before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi seeking an injunction against alienation of property and for recovery of Ac.0.54 cents of land in Sy.No.219 of 2010 along with a declaration of title by the Court. The V Additional District Judge directed that no alienation to an extent of Ac.0.54 cents of land should be carried out. The plaintiff contends that the defendants, in the guise of enforcement of this order started interfering with land in the possession of the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff, in view of the aforesaid fac