IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary injunction – For the purpose of claiming relief of interim injunction of restraining defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment, one has to prima facie, establish possession.

JUDGMENT

Appellant herein – 3rd defendant in the Suit preferred present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC assailing order, dated 03.09.2019, passed in I.A.No.180 of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, granting temporary injunction in favour of 1st respondent/plaintiff restraining the appellant and other co-defendants from interfering in any way with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending the Suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Appellant herein is 3rd defendant in the Suit. 1st respondent-plaintiff initially filed O.S.No.89 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, for declaration of right and title to suit schedule property and also to declare that sale deeds, even dated 27.07.2018, executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 to be null and void and not binding on plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Suit was instituted by Ms.S.A. Tejaswi D/o.Ashok Kumar, as next friend of Deity viz., Sri Seetharamanjeya Bhajana Mandiram Devalayam, Palamaner (hereinafter called as “Devalayam”). Alongwith the Suit, plaintiff also preferred I.A.No.180 of 2018 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s/petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. As per the schedule, the subject property is an extent of Ac.0.20.20 cents out of Ac.3.29 cents in Survey No.767/6 of Palamaneru Revenue Village. As per facts narrated in the plaint and also I.A., late R. Jayarama Chetty was a devotee of Sri Seetha, Rama, Lakshmana and Anjaneya, during his life time, he constructed Devalayam at Cross Road, Old Pet, Palamaner. In order to maintain the same, an extent of Ac.3.29 cents in Survey No.767/6 was dedicated, which was evident from the registered partition deed, dated 09.12.1964, particularly, described as “J-Schedule” therein. The rest of properties were partitioned amongst his three sons, as per desire and wish of their father, who by then already died way back on 30.03.1957. Even wife of late R. Jayarama Chetty also died on 05.03.1993. One of the sons of late R.Jayarama Chetty viz., Radhakrishnan sold the land that was set apart to Devalayam under registered sale deed, dated 10.02.1974 in favour of R.K.Venkatachalapathi without any authority or consent of family members and delivered possession of the property. The same was challenged by J.S.Ganesh Kumar, who was grandson of late R.Jayarama Chetty and son of Sreeramulu as next friend representing Devalayam in O.S.No.30 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Chittoor, to which even all other sons and grandchildren of late R.Jayarama Chetty were arrayed as defendants. The same was contested only by the purchaser and eventually, by judgment and decree, dated 03.08.1996, Suit was decreed in favour of Devalayam and the subject property was ordered to be delivered back. Assailing the same, purchaser preferred A.S. No.2164 of 1996 before this Court and ultimately, pending adjudication of the Appeal, parties have compromised the dispute in terms of Memorandum of Compromise, dated 01.11.2004 and accordingly, appeal came to be disposed. As part of compromise, out of Ac.3.29 cents, an extent of Ac.0.20.20 cents, which is subject matter of present Suit, was kept apart and the remaining was allowed to be parted with the purchaser on receiving settlement amount of about Rs.1.00 Lakh which was to be spent for the maintenance and development of Devalayam. While things stood thus, 1st defendant, who is son of late Radhakrishnan and grandson of late R