ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 11.03.2022, dismissing the C.M.A.No.3 of 2020, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole, confirming the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.686 of 2017, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking to grant temporary injunction, in O.S.No.103 of 2017, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st defendant and Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3/defendants No.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner herein initially filed the suit against the 1st respondent only as defendant and subsequently, the respondents No.2 and 3 were added as per the orders dated 05.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.983 of 2017.

4. The brief case of the petitioner/plaintiff is as follows:

a. The plaint schedule property of Acs.1.02 cents i.e., Ac.0.43 cents in R.S.No.18/2A and Ac.0.59 cents in R.S.No.16/8 situated in Pasarlapudi Village, East Godavai District, belongs to the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff took the same on oral lease very long back for nearly more than 40 years from the predecessors, in title along with the 1st defendant. Thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying rentals by way of paddy of seven bags for sarva crop and 7 bags of dalwa crop regularly.

The defendant is running a rice mill at Mamidikuduru.

b. The plaintiff has land on the northern side of the plaint schedule property and cultivating paddy. The plaint schedule property is also a wet paddy field. When the ONGC authorities laid pipe underneath the land of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, compensation was granted by the ONGC and the same was shared by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The Government also recognized the plaintiff as a tenant of the plaint schedule property under the eligibility of loan card No.01A186609 for the period from 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012, and another eligibility of loan card No.04A569538 for the period from 01.06.2017 to 31.05.2018.

c. While so, recently, the 1st defendant put the plaint schedule property for sale. The plaintiff offered the best price. In the meanwhile, some of the enemies of the plaintiff spoiled the mind of the defendant and tried to create nominal and spurious documents in favour of the brother of the plaintiff to get the plaintiff unlawfully evicted. In view of the disputes, the plaintiff filed Caveat vide O.P.No.58 of 2017 before the trial Court, apprehending the litigation. Since then, the 1st defendant was gathering his caste people and proclaiming in the village that the plaintiff would be dispossessed by hook or crook from the plaint schedule property and in that process, some rowdy elements were also brought to the house of the plaintiff threatening him with dire consequences. Hence, the suit is filed.

d. The 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the eastern and southern side boundaries are Aminr Unnisha Begum land but not Masthan @ Babulu land; that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the defendant sold the property to Kusums Greeshma W/o Satyanarayana of Pasarlapudi Village under a Registered Sale deed dated 21.06.2017 i.e., prior to filing of the suit and that she is necessary and proper party; that the civil Court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiff has to approach the Special Officer/Tenancy Tribunal under A.P.Tenancy Act; that the name of the 1st defendant is duly mutated in the revenue records since he purchased the property on 29.07.2006; that the allegations in the plaint regarding the tenancy etc., are false; that the eligibility loan cards (2 in number) filed along with the plaint are cancelled by the Tahsildar vide endorsement No.ref.B/354/2017, date