COMMON JUDGMENT:

Second Appeal No.539 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.98 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1364 of

2001 dated 31.07.2006.

2. Second Appeal No.538 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.97 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1331 of

2001 dated 31.07.2006.

3. Second Appeal No.540 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.99 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1363 of

2001 dated 31.07.2006.

4. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed five different suits in O.S.Nos.1364 of 2001, 1331 of 2001 and 1363 of 2001 they sought for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with physical and peaceful possession and enjoyment from their respective plots as they filed suits against common defendant Nos.1 to 5 regarding the same relief. All the suits were clubbed together and evidence is recorded in O.S.No.1331 of 2001 and a common judgment was passed in which the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with physical and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with respect to their individual suit plots but the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and set aside the order of the trial Court. Against the said order, plaintiffs filed these second appeals with the following substantial questions of law:

“i. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree

of the trial Court and in dismissing the suit for injunction is legally sustainable and is supported by evidence on record?

ii. Having regard to the recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.B.16, B.17 coupled with oral evidence, whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession of the property is legally sustainable?

iii. Whether the lower appellate Court is not in error in relying on the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not filed any objections to the report of the Commissioner even though in the cross examination it has been admitted that the entire land has not been measured?

iv. Whether the lower Court is not in error in relying on the report of the Commissioner even though the plaintiff had no opportunity the cross examine the Deputy Director as he was dead?

v. Whether non filing of the memo of objections with regard to the measurements taken by the Commissioner to hold that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property?

vi. Whether the reasoning of the lower Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of the trial Court is legally sustainable?

5. Pulyala Damodar Reddy (plaintiff in O.S.No.1331 of 2001), G.Bikshma Reddy (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1343 of 2001), Chakilam Janardhan Rao (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1344 of 2000), G.Veeraswamy (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1363 of 2001) and K.Venkataiah (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1354 of 2001) have filed separate suits against common defendants Mohd. Abdul Kareem (Defendant No.1), Mohd. Ankoos (Defendant No.2), Yousuf Shareef (Defendant No.3), Mohd. Nizamudding (Defendant No.4) contending that they purchased the plots under Exs.A.1 to A.5 registered sale deeds respectively from the Warangal District, Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers Co- operative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda in Survey No.1045. And that they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots, but the defendants without any manner of right have tried to interfere into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over their respective plots, the suits are filed