ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10.09.2025 passed in CMA No.12 of 2021 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Ongole dismissing the appeal thereby confirming the order and decree dated 15.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.1259 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. The case of petitioner herein is that the father of the petitioner No.1 got purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property under two separate registered sale deeds dt.27.07.1977 and 22.10.1977 respectively from his vendor one Panda Venkata Raja Gopala Krishna Chowdary and his sons. Since then his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and also he had been raised dry crops i.e., tobacco, paddy, red gram etc., till his death. But he did not take steps for mutation and for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the petition schedule mentioned property in his name pursuant to his acquisition as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (For short “Act, 1971”) as there was no controversy from his vendor and therefore the names of the vendors remains in FLR and in other revenue records, the father of the petitioner died on 27.12.1990 as intestate leaving behind the Petitioners No.1 to 3/plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioners became joint owners of the petition schedule mentioned property being legal heirs by way of Hindu Succession and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. Further stated that, there are some family disputes, therefore the petitioner No.3 filed suit in OS No.287/2011 for the relief of partition against the petitioners No.1 and 2 by seeking 1/3^rd share in the properties and the same was decreed. During the course of final decree proceedings in the said OS No.287/2011, the defendants No.4 to 7 herein tried their level best to dispossess the petitioners from the petition schedule mentioned property by using force and by alleging that they got purchased Ac.4.25 cents of land from the defendants No.1 to 3, but those transactions are collusive and are not binding on the petitioners. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to institute a suit i.e. O.S.No.291 of 2016 to declare that, they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule mentioned property.

4. It is further case of petitioner herein that an Interim Application i.e. I.A.No.1259 of 2016 in O.S.No.291 of 2016 is filed seeking for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from the interference with regard to suit schedule property. Wherein the trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 15.10.2019, observing that as balance of convenience is not in favouring the petitioners. The said order was assailed through an appeal before the III Additional Judge vide CMA No.12/2021. The appellate court also dismissed the CMA vide order dated 10.9.2025. Aggrieved by the said order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts have failed to appreciate the acquisition under the Exhibits-P2 and P3 i.e., certified copy of the registered sale deeds dated 27.7.1977 and sale deed dated 22.10.1977 and further failed to consider the other exhibits which consists of pattadar passbook, adangals, and revenue entries showing petitioners names in the revenue records, which clearly proves the long-standing possession of petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that the other suits instituted by respondents Nos.2 to 7 i.e., O.S.No.240/2013 and O.S.No.464/2012 against the petitioners and others herein were dismissed by holding that nobody has title in their favour.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of material place on record, It is settled proposition of law that to grant a temporary injunction, the c