A temporary injunction requires establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the risk of irreparable harm, with courts exercising discretion cautiously against trial court's findings.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing Ms.Malladi Aruna, learned counsel for the respondents/respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Court of III Addl. District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff and recovery of possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents / 500 links (169.59 Sq. yards) in Sy. No.663/5 of Moolasagaram Village, Nandyal Mandal and District (Erstwhile Kurnool District) (hereinafter called as ‘subject land’) from respondent Nos.3 and 4 and also for consequential permanent injunction retraining the respondents from interfering with possession over the subject land and to declare the document Nos.9361 & 9362 of 2024 dated 22.06.2024 executed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in favour of respondent No.3 represented by the respondent No.4 as null and void and also for mandatory injunction to demolish the constructions made in the ABCD portion and also for restraining the respondents from alienating the subject land.

3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1634 of 2025 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating any sort of encumbrances over the subject land by way of sale, gift, lease or mortgage entering into an agreement of sale till the disposal of the main suit to others under Order XXXIX Rule 1 R/w. Section 151 C.P.C., in O.S.No.27 of 2025. The said I.A. was dismissed on merits and aggrieved by the Order of dismissal dated 20.08.2025, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.714 of 2025 before this Court by invoking Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C.

4. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No.1635 of 2025 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from making further constructions in the subject land under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w. Section 151 C.P.C., in O.S.No.27 of 2025. The said I.A. was also dismissed on merits and aggrieved by the Order of dismissal dated 20.08.2025, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.686 of 2025 before this Court by invoking Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C.

5. In view of common submissions advanced by the respective counsel on both sides, coupled with the nexus between the respective cases, we deem it appropriate to pass common orders.

Case of the appellant/plaintiff:

6. It is the version of the plaintiff that he is working as Junior Commissioning Officer in the Indian Army at Pune, Maharashtra State. Originally, the subject land was sold to Z. William Stanley by Shakun @ Shekun Bee and Shaikmabusagari Rajia Begum @ Rajiabee through registered sale deed vide document No.6269/2014 dated 22.10.2014(Ex.P.2). Z. William Stanley executed a registered sale deed vide document No.2780/2018 dated 19.03.2018 in favour of Shaik Hussain Ali (Ex.P.3) and he in turn sold the subject land to Mulla Khader Hussain by way of registered sale deed vide document No.2472/2019 dated 02.03.2019 (Ex.P.4). Later, Mulla Khader Hussain sold the subject land to one Manigiri Pedda Eswaraiah, who is the fat