JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2011 in A.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Vikarabad (for short, lower appellate Court), whereunder the appeal was allowed reversing the injunction granted by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, trial Court) in O.S.No.40 of 1993, dated 26.07.2002.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.40 of 1993. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.40 of 1993.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 under a receipt dated 01.05.1978 (Ex.A-1) by paying advance amount of Rs.500/-. The price agreed was Rs.5/- per square yard and the balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No.1 sold the suit property to late Babu Lal, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs. On the same day, the possession of the suit property was delivered to Babu Lal. Subsequently, Babu Lal had obtained construction permission from the Gram Panchayat on 10.08.1981 and laid stone pillars surrounding the suit property. The plaintiffs also pleaded that part of the suit premises were let out to the tenants, who are running tyre puncture shop and kirana shop by obtaining due licences from Gram Panchayat. All the above facts establish their settled possession over the suit property.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that previously also, one S. Narsimhulu filed a suit O.S.No.5 of 1983 on the file of the Court of District Munsiff, Vikarabad, against Babu Lal in respect of ‘seri land’ in between the house plots of Narsimhulu and Babu Lal. The plaintiffs have contested the said suit by marking Ex.A-3, the construction permission and plan dated 10.08.1981 and the said suit was filed for mandatory injunction for removal of stone pillars erected by Babu Lal. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was also preferred and the same was also dismissed.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 have also filed O.S.No.27 of 1992 on the file of the Court of District Munsiff, Vikarabad. In the said suit, they have also filed I.A.No.105 of 1992 seeking interim injunction and initially, injunction was granted on 21.05.1992. Defendant No.2 in the present case filed a counter in the said application claiming that he had purchased 969 square yards. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed on the jurisdictional aspect.

6. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants, without any right, tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs as well as Babu Lal have been expressing their readiness and willingness to perform their part of obligation under Ex.A-1, but defendant No.1 has not been willing to perform his part of obligation, and contrarily, he executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 to deny the rightful claim of the plaintiffs. When defendant No.2 on the basis of the sale deed tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs, the present suit has been filed for specific performance as well as grant of injunction.

7. The case of the defendants is that Babu Lal and the father of defendant No.2 are the brothers and he denied the sale agreement in between Babu Lal and defendant No.1. They also denied the ownership of Babu Lal and the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to defendant No.2, he entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.1 in the year 1978 and he has obtained construction permission from Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, defendant No.2 has entered into a registered sale transaction with defendant No.1 in the year 1992 vide document No.5648/1992 in the office of District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. The