ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dated 12.10.2018, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which was filed challenging the order, dated 31.08.2017, allowing the petition in I.A.No.1464 of 2016 in O.S.No.461 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, subordinates, servants and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the plaint schedule property.

2. Heard Sri B.S Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Virupaksha Dattatryeya Goud, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant for convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule agricultural land of Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/4, Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.199/3, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.199/1 totally constituting a single plot of Ac.03.14 cents having purchased the same in the year 1988 from M. Pedda Venkata Rami Reddy who is his senior paternal uncle. Out of the same, the plaintiff sold Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.199/4, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.199/1, totally Ac.1.50 cents to Kuruva Maddileti, vide registered sale deed, dated 02.05.2006, and the rest of the property in an extent of Ac.1.64 cents (i.e., Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.199/4 + Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.199/3) is in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. His name was mutated in all the revenue records. He was issued pattadar passbook and title deed and ROR for the year 2014, 2015 & 2016 and adangals for the plaint schedule property for the year 2014 to 2016 Fasli No.1424 to 1426 in his name. While the things stood thus, the defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff and residing in Dupadu village having no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is trying to trespass into the plaint schedule land.

(b) The defendant filed counter affidavit denying the petition averments and further contending as follows:

The plaintiff has suppressed the truth. Originally, the plaint schedule property of Ac.1.64 cents belonged to Chinna Rami Reddy, the father of the parties herein, who got it, along with other properties situated in A.Gokulapdu and Ulchala villages, in a partition with his brother Pedda Rami Reddy long ago. Chinna Rami Reddy and his two sons constituted a Hindu Joint Family and owned and possessed several items of immovable properties situated at both A.Gokulapadu and Ulchala villages. Most of the joint family properties were sold even during the life time of Chinna Rami Reddy. On the death of Chinna Rami Reddy about 30 years back, his wife, Sivamma, managed the joint family properties. The remaining joint family properties were partitioned under an oral partition affected about 20 years back in which petition schedule property of Ac.1.64 cents fell to the share of the defendant while the land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.199/1 and 199/4 of Ulchala village and some other properties fell to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. For the last 20 years, he has been residing in Dupadu village, the native place of his wife. Taking advantage of the absence of the defendant in the village, the plaintiff collusively obtained pattadar passbooks in his favour for his land and also for the land of the defendant. Notwithstanding the pattadar passbooks, the plaintiff and the defendant were in possession and enjoyment in their respective shares allotted in the partition. On 02.05.2006, the plaintiff sold his land to K. Maddileti, under the registered sale deed, and delivered possession. Thereupon, after due e