The court upheld that a temporary injunction can be granted based on prima facie possession, balance of convenience, and avoidance of irreparable harm.

ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order, dated 21.03.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby and whereunder, temporary injunction was granted in favour of 1^st respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3/ defendant No.3, restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, by setting-aside the Order, dated 26.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.182 of 2015 in O.S.No.84 of 2015, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Appellants in the present Revision are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.3 before the Trial court. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

-

3. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur against defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining them, their men and assignees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of schedule property, i.e. an extent of Ac.3.38 cents of dry land out of total extent Ac.7.58 cents in Survey No.41, situated in Atmakur Sub-Registration District, Atmakur Mandal, Vennawada village, H/o.Padakandla, SPSR Nellore District.

(b) It is the contention of plaintiff that the schedule property was joint family property; that originally the schedule property was in the name of one Penchalaiah, father of the plaintiff; that the father of plaintiff, his sons i.e. one Narasimha Rao, plaintiff and his younger brother viz. Rajesh got partitioned the joint family properties under a Registered Partition Deed, dated 29.10.2007; that out of Ac.7.58 cents in Survey No.41, an extent of Ac.3.38 cents of immovable property fell towards the share of plaintiff and since then, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption.

(c) The plaintiff was issued Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the schedule property; that the plaintiff spent Rs.10,000/- for clearing bushes and got ploughed the said land with JCB to raise Bengal Gram, Blackgram crops; that the defendants, who are adjacent owners of the schedule property to the southern side, interfered and threatened the plaintiff not to plough the land and caused obstruction to the plaintiff in proceeding with the agricultural operations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit along with a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

-

4. Defendants filed counter denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It is contended that one Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah was the owner of schedule land an extent of Ac.2.89 cents; that he died leaving behind him his five daughters; that Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah was the maternal uncle of 1^st defendant’s father and as the daughters of Subbaiah are away from the village where the schedule property is situated, 1^st defendant was entrusted to look after the schedule property long back; that the plaintiff and his father got managed and created revenue record with a view to grab the schedule land and the alleged partition among the plaintiff and his father is not genuine; that neither the plaintiff nor his father was the owner of the schedule property and they were not in possession of the same at any point of time. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the contentions and rival contentions of