The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for granting a temporary injunction, highlighting the trial court's failure to adequately assess evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Challa Gunaranjan, J.)

Petitioners/Plaintiffs, being unsuccessful, preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC aggrieved by the order, dated 19.04.2023, passed in I.A. No.419 of 2022 in O.S. No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, followers and associates from entering or interfering with the petitioners/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Suit and I.A. before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Initially, the 1^st plaintiff Devathu Musala Rao, claiming to be the adopted son of Devathu Sriranganadham, filed the present Suit in O.S.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, followers, associates and relatives from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, shown as A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 in the plaint plan. As per the schedule to the plaint, the subject property in issue, as mentioned, is an extent of Ac.0.46 cents out of Ac.1.44½ cents in Survey No.305 of Ongole Village and Town. Along with the Suit, the 1^st plaintiff also filed I.A. No.419 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering or interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property in any manner. As the sole plaintiff died intestate, the plaintiffs 2 to 5/petitioners 2 to 5 were added as legal heirs, by order, dated 17.11.2022, passed in I.A. No.1467 of 2022.

4. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are set out as under:

It is stated that 1^st plaintiff was adopted by Devathu Sriranganatham. Initially, Devathu Musalaiah acquired an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Survey No.305 of Ongole Village and Town under registered sale deed, dated 26.08.1904 vide document No.1777 of 1904. The said Devathu Musalaiah had three sons viz., Sreeramulu, Subbarayudu and Sriranganadham. Sriranganadham also purchased an extent of Ac.1.44½ cents in Survey No.305 of Ongole village and town, through a registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1931 vide document No.1145/1931. That, out of the total extent of Ac.5.78 cents of land in the aforesaid survey number, in view of the above acquisition of the aforesaid extents, the petitioners claimed to be the owners to an extent of Ac.2.34½ cents. Out of which, after the demise of Devathu Musalaiah, his sons and grandchildren alienated Ac.1.88 cents through various registered sale deeds, thereby left with an extent of Ac.0.46 cents as shown in the plaint schedule property. The particulars of sale deeds executed by the sons and grandchildren of Devathu Musalaiah are set out in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. Further, it is stated that the aforesaid extent of Ac.1.88 cents covered the entire extent of Ac.0.90 cents which late Devathu Musalaiah acquired under registered sale deed, dated 26.08.1904 and the remaining extent of Ac.0.98 cents was covered under registered sale deed, dated 19.09.1931, through which Devathu Sriranganadham had acquired, thereby, it is stated that the remaining extent of Ac.0.46 cents corresponding to the balance extent of land traceable to the sale deed, dated 19.09.1931. That when Sriramulu, natural brother of the 1^st plaintiff, and others tried to encroach upon the remaining extent of Ac.0.46 cents, the 1^st plaintiff had filed O.S.No.38 of 2008 on the file of V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction which was decreed on 19.04.2011, therefore, the same would