The appellant is the plaintiff who has not succeeded in obtaining an interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from disturbing his peaceful possession. According to the appellant, he was a tenant in respect of ‘A’ schedule A property under an agreement dated 6.7.1981 from one Baalamirtham (‘B’). She is the mother of the 1st respondent. The appellant was paying an advance of Rs.1,000. The lease deed permitted him to put up super-structure and the appellant also did so. Thereafter, in a family arrangement of ‘B’ and her family members, this property was allotted to the 1st respondent. The rent was paid to ‘B’ alone who received it. An un-registered lease deed was prepared in 1984, but since the signature of the 1st respondent was not obtained, the appellant continued to pay the rent to ‘B’. On 19.4.1989, ‘B’ offered the ‘A’ schedule property for sale. The sale consideration was also fixed. An agreement of sale was prepared on stamp paper and shown to ‘B’ and the 1st respondent and an advance of Rs.50,000 was paid. The 1st respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. The appellant is already in possession of the plaint sch