JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Appeal is preferred challenging the order dt.22.09.2020 in IA.No.294 of 2020 in OS.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Malkajgiri.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit.

3. The said suit had been filed by the appellants against the sole respondent for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4. The plaint A schedule property, according to the appellants, is an extent of Acs.18.29 gts in Survey No.s 350, 351 and 353 of Boomaraspet, Medchal presently in Shameerpet Mandal of Ranga Reddy District with boundaries as they were at the time of their purchase; and the plaint A schedule property with its present boundaries is mentioned in the plaint B-Schedule.

The case of the appellants

5. The case of the appellants is that their parents purchased the suit schedule property in their names in the following manner:

a) an extent of Acs.4.34 gts in Survey No.s 350, 351 and 353 of Boomaraspet village was purchased in the name of the 1st appellant under a registered sale deed dtd.07.10.1985;

b) another extent of Acs.4.34 gts and 50 sq. yards in the same survey numbers of the same village was purchased in the name of the 2nd appellant under a registered sale deed dt.30.09.1993;

c) Ac.5.00 gts was purchased in the name of the 3rd appellant under Ex.P3 dt.30.09.1993 in the same survey numbers in the same village; and

d) Acs.4.00 gts was purchased in the name of the 4th appellant under a registered sale deed-Ex.P4, dt.07.12.1985 in the same survey numbers and in the same village.

6. It is the case of the appellants that all the appellants are closely related and the extents of the lands purchased by them are in a continuous single block admeasuring Acs.18.29 gts, which is described in the plaint schedules.

7. It is their case that their uncle Achanta Atchaiah used to manage and cultivate the land since the dates of purchase till 2010, that thereafter he became sick and passed away, and thereafter they engaged a person by name Mr.Raju to protect and cultivate the land.

8. They contended that they were also issued new pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the State of Telangana and they are also receiving amounts per crop under the Rythu Bandhu Scheme of the State Government. They contended that the entire suit schedule property was fenced with a barbed wire.

9. According to them, there was a hike in prices on account of the fact that the subject land abuts the Outer Ring Road and since there is a possibility of encroachment, they started constructing a pakka compound wall around the suit schedule property and at that time, the respondent obstructed the construction of the compound wall on the eastern side though he had no right therein.

10. It is also mentioned that there is a small discrepancy in the new pattadar pass books and that lesser extent of land Acs.16.14 gts is shown as compared to Acs.18.29 gts, which is in fact owned by the appellants.

IA.No.294 of 2020

11. Along with the suit, the appellants filed IA.No.294 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint B-Schedule property till the disposal of the suit. They reiterated the contents of the plaint in the said application.

The stand of the respondent

12. Counter affidavit is filed in the said application by the respondent opposing grant of interim relief to the appellants.

13. It is firstly contended that the land in survey No.s 350, 351 and 353 is a large extent of land; that the respondent has also got land in survey No.s350 and 353 apart from survey No.s 354, 356 and 345; without disclosing the extent of land in their possession and without localization of the same, the appellants had filed the suit and so it was not maintainable.

14. Accordi