A claimant for temporary injunction must establish actual possession, inadequacy of mere assertions or photo evidence without corroboration leads to dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 14.03.2024 passed in CMA No.8 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kurnool confirming the order dated 29.09.2022 passed in IA No.19 of 2022 in OS No.3 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District (for short "the Trial Court").

2. The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The petition and respondent No.1 are no other than the siblings and children of Late M. Ahmed Hussain. The petitioner has preferred civil suit in OS No.3 of 2018 before the Trial Court seeking for cancellation of registered settlement deed dated 01.11.2014 said to have bene executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the plaint schedule property as null and void and for grant of permanent injunction. The petitioner filed interlocutory application vide IA No.19 of 2022 in OS No.3 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction against the respondent No.2 and his henchmen from entering into the petition schedule property without due process of law till disposal of the main suit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Momin Ahmed Hussain are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Karnataka Bank Limited, Anantapur got the schedule property auctioned under the provisions of SARFAESI Act through its authorized officer, basing on symbolic possession, without physical and actual possession and indeed, the schedule property being used as auto parking stand by Shaik Basha of Amalapuram Village, Atmakur Mandal and other auto drivers by paying monthly rents to the petitioner and the schedule property is used as an auto-stand since thirty years. One tenant by name N. Anjaneyulu is using a corner of the schedule property for keeping centering polls depot. During the lifetime of M. Ahmed Hussain, one tourist lodge represented by its Proprietor B. Gouse Azam has been using the part of petition schedule property for parking his customers' vehicles on payment of rent to the petitioner.

While the matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 who is a collusive auction purchaser threatened the tenants on 02.01.2022 that he would bring JCB vehicle and dismantle the shed situated in the schedule property and also overthrew the autos parked therein. Karnataka Bank Limited, Anantapur took the schedule property as security without proper enquiry about the right and title of respondent No.1 and granted loan in collusion with respondent No.1 who is the principal borrower for extraneous consideration and without looking into the validity of the settlement deed dated 01.11.2014 which stands in the name of respondent No.1. The title of respondent No.1 is under challenge in the civil suit. As respondent No.2 is about to enter into the schedule property unlawfully, without due process of law, respondent No.2 with the help of local police, tried to trespass into the schedule property. Respondent No.2 highhandedly removed the board on 12.01.2022, however, the petitioner's people re-fixed it immediately. Petitioner gave intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool on 11.01.2022 in person and by registered post regarding the highhandedness of the collusive auction purchaser/R2 and the petitioner also gave representation to the Sub-Inspector of Police by registered post. Hence, the petition.

5. The 1st respo