The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant or refusal of injunction is governed by the principles of analyzing pleadings and documents, exercising sound judicial discretion, and considering the balance of conveniences and inconveniences. The plaintiff's conduct must be free from blame, and they must approach the court with clean hands. Failure to establish a prima facie case and other requirements for granting a temporary injunction may lead to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT:

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.3, challenging the order, dated 29.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.98 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2020 by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby, the subject application filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.3 and respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein/defendants, their agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri V.Rohit, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.3, Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants and perused the record.

3. For convenience of discussion, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the subject I.A.No.98 of 2020 before the Court below.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff No.3 would contend that the findings recorded and the conclusions reached by the Court below are perverse and contrary to the settled legal position in relation to grant of temporary injunction order, pending disposal of the suit. The subject suit in O.S.No.8 of 2020 was filed on 27.01.2020 to declare that the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2785/2007 dated 13.12.2007, 2885/2007 dated 31.12.2007, 2814/2007 dated 19.12.2007, 2750/2007 dated 10.12.2007, 2789/2007 dated 14.12.2007 and 2817/2007 dated 19.12.2007 executed by late V.Ravi Raju in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6 respectively are not binding on the plaintiffs and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 7, their agents, supporter, henchmen, legal heirs etc., or any other persons from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in any manner without following due course of law. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed several documents to show that they have lawful title and possession over the suit schedule land. There are no documents to show that the defendants are having lawful title and possession over the suit schedule land. The defendants are claiming title from one V.Ravi Raju, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiffs. However, V.Ravi Raju has no absolute right to alienate the suit schedule land. The sale deeds executed by said V.Ravi Raju in favour of the defendants are not supported by any consideration and no possession was delivered under those sale deeds. Mr.V.Ravi Raju even filed suits in O.S.Nos.180, 181, 182, 183, 184 and 192 before the Court below against the defendant Nos.1 to 6 for cancellation of those sale deeds on the ground that they were obtained fraudulently without paying sale consideration. However, the said suits were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, V.Ravi Raju preferred appeals in CCCA Nos.174/2018, 175/2018, 181/2018, 184/2018, 192/2018 and 195/2018 before this Court, which are pending before this Court. Furthermore, in Execution Application, the Court concerned held that the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring 5716.64 square yards. There are several documents to the credit of the plaintiffs to substantiate their lawful ownership and possession over the suit schedule land. Though the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and the balance of convenience is in their favour and established that they would suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted in their favour, the Court below, without properly appreciating the facts and the legal position obtaining, erroneously dismissed the subject application and u