The court reaffirmed that without establishing lawful possession and tenancy, an injunction cannot be granted.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the dismissal of I.A. No.559 of 2012, a petition for grant of temporary injunction for the schedule of property, in O.S. No.163 of 2012 vide order dated 07-06-2012 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The original suit is filed seeking permanent injunction.

2. The appellant herein is the petitioner - plaintiff and the respondents are respondents - defendants in the impugned application before the trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that he is tenant, oral tenancy, of defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the schedule of property wherein he is carrying on bamboo business for the past several years periodically and paying rents to defendant Nos.6 and 7 regularly. However, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in the schedule property, for which he gave report to the police, but of no avail. Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the original owners, as such, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are not entitled to interfere with his possession over the schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit for permanent injunction and the impugned application for temporary injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 5 only though defendant Nos.6 and 7 are shown as parties to the petition.

5. Defendant No.5 filed counter on behalf of himself and also on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 4 denying the case of the plaintiff. Their case is that Y. Narsa Reddy, who is grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 4, was original owner and possessor of the schedule property i.e. the land admeasuring Acs.3-31 guntas in Survey Nos.741, 742, 743 and after his demise Y. Gandi Reddy, father of defendant Nos.1 to 4, succeeded to the property and during his life time he converted the land into house plots and after his demise on 13-05-1996, defendant Nos.1 to 4 succeeded to the schedule property. In 2011, defendant No.5 purchased Northern part of plot No.9 and plot Nos.10, 11 and 14 of a total extent of 990 square yards in Survey Nos.741, 742 and 743 under the registered sale deed dated 26-11-2011. Thus, defendant Nos.1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of their respective extents, but when defendant Nos.6 and 7 tried to encroach the plots of defendants Nos.1 to 5, defendant No.5 lodged a complaint against defendant Nos.6 and 7 in Malkajgiri Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.369 of 2009 and on enquiry by the Malkajgiri Mandal Tahsildar on request of the police concerned, it is revealed that Plot No.14 of 266 square yards in Survey Nos.741, 742 and 743 of Malkajgiri Mandal was encroached by the plaintiff. Questioning the same, defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed a writ petition, in which the plaintiff herein filed an affidavit as third party supporting the case of defendant Nos.6 and 7, however the said writ petition was dismissed on merits.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the following point was framed by the trial Court for determination of the impugned application:
"Whether the petitioners / plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour?"

7. In support of his case, plaintiff got marked Exs.A - 1 to A - 21 and on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 5, they got marked Exs.B - 1 to B - 8.

8. The trial court after an elaborate consideration of each and every document coupled with the pleadings and the material on record, dismissed the petition with costs holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his tenancy over the schedule property and his pleadings are of camouflage nature and that he was projected by defendant Nos.6 and 7. Assailing the same, plaintiff preferred this appeal.

9. Heard the learned c