IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

V. Srinivas, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No.48 of 2013 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

2. The appellants herein instituted the suit in O.S. No.744 of 2005 before the Court of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Tirupati for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, agents, followers or anyone claiming under him from anyway interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

3. The respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants in brief in the plaint was as follows:

1st plaintiff is the elder brother of the 2nd plaintiff and they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds dated 22.10.1992 from one V.Kannemma for valid consideration. From the date of purchase the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the said properties as absolute owners. The defendant, who has no manner of right, title or interest over the said properties, is trying to dispossess them. Hence, the suit.

6. The defendant/respondent denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:

He is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. The Inam Deputy Tahsildar after due enquiry granted Ryotwari Patta for the suit lands in the name of the defendant's father and the said Patta was also mutated in the village accounts. Defendant's father died intestate in the year 1995, consequently, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same till today. Either the plaintiffs or their vendor have no right or interest or possession or title whatsoever over the suit lands. Plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and they are not entitled for equitable remedy of injunction as the sale deeds mentioned in the plaint are fabricated documents to knock away the suit property, which has absolutely belonged to the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

"1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or not? and

3. To what relief?"

8. At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 and A.2 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the respondent/defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were exhibited.

9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties and they are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for, thus, decreed the suit with costs, vide judgment dated 21.01.2013.

10. It is against this decree and judgment, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal before the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, vide A.S. No.48 of 2013 and the said appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated 15.03.2019, by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred the present Second Appeal. This Court admitted the present appeal on 18.08.2020 by framing the following substantial questions of law:

"i).Whether the 1st Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court upon proper appreciation of evidence, when a discretionary relief was granted in favour of the appellants? and

ii).Whether refusal of the Appellate Court to consider the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the appellants in the ci