ORDER :

1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.18.03.2019 in CMA.No.23 of 2018 of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District modifying the order dt.19.06.2018 in I.A.No.231 of 2018 in O.S.No.204 of 2018 passed by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in the said suit, which they had filed seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent to restrain the respondent from interfering with their alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. Petitioners pleaded that they acquired the suit schedule property bearing plot No.5 in Survey No.146(part) of Nagaram village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District under a registered Sale Deed dt.22.09.2017 executed in their favour by one V.Goverdhan Reddy and others. They contended that construction permission was obtained by V.Goverdhan Reddy and others from Grampanchayat Nagaram on 10.03.2014; that he constructed a house, which was allotted House No.12-48/8/1; that he got regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme by the HMDA on 11.10.2017 and he is also paying property tax thereon, apart from obtaining electricity connection. Petitioners alleged that the respondent was trying to dispossess them from the suit schedule property and so they filed the suit.

4. Written statement was filed by the respondent opposing the suit claim and contending that the suit schedule property itself does not exist; that petitioners are not in possession thereof on the date of filing of the suit; and the respondent is in possession thereof. The respondent not only disputed the title of the petitioners, but also of the petitioners’ vendors and claimed that the suit schedule property was plot No.127 and Sale Deed has been executed by him as per GPAs given to him by the legal heirs of one Govindaraju Suryanarayana Rao in favour of his partner on 27.12.2017 covering 444 sq. yards in plot No.127; and later the respondent got a sale deed in his name for plot No.s 92 and 128 under two documents No.5440/2018 and 5399/2018.

5. According to the respondent, G.Suryanarayana Rao purchased plot No.s 92 and 128 in Survey No.s 146, 147 and 148 from one Ghanapuram Balakistaiah and Smt Guduru Narasamma under a registered Sale Deed dt.23.07.1968 through one Cheekoti Bhikshapathi, who was the Special Power of Attorney Holder of Ghanapuram Balakistaiah and Smt Guduru Narasamma.

6. Pending suit, petitioners filed I.A.No.231 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the respondent from interfering with their alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property reiterating the contents of the plaint.

7. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent opposing the same and reiterating the stand taken in the written statement.

8. Before the trial Court, petitioners examined Ex.s P1 to P21 and respondent marked Ex.s R1 to R15.

9. After examining the evidence of both sides, the trial Court opined that the documents Ex.s P5, P6, P9, P14, P17, P18 and P20 show clear flow of title of the suit schedule property from the original pattadar G.Balakrishna Reddy to the petitioners, whereas the documents filed by the respondent appear to relate to totally a different property and not the suit schedule property. It observed that Ex.s R1 to R15 do not invalidate the title of the petitioners and therefore prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the petitioners and irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioners if interim injunction is not granted pending the suit.

10. Assailing the same, the respondent filed CMA.No.23 of 2018 before the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

11. By order dt.18.03.2019, while specifically holding that possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit is established, the lower Appellate Court held that there is a cloud on the ti