THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR And THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.M.A. Nos.167 and 176 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order dated 11-02-2025 passed in I.A.No.37/2024 and I.A.No.36/2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Khammam.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Tarun Ram Aitham and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record.

3. Since, the parties are one and the same and both the orders arise out of the same suit, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The appellants herein are plaintiffs in the suit filed by them against the respondents/defendants for the relief of declaration that appellant/plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties.

5. In the subject suit filed by the appellants herein, they have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.37 of 2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellant No.1 and another Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.36 of 2024 to restrain the respondents from alienating Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties.

6. The trial Court while ordering notice to the respondents, had granted ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the appellants herein.

7. Respondents on being served with notice, entered appearance in the suit and filed petition to vacate the ad-interim ex parte injunction granted in favour of the appellants.

8. The trial Court, after hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, by the impugned orders had vacated the ad-interim ex parte injunction in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and dismissed the said application filed by the appellants herein.

9. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the name of the appellants herein have been mutated in the Revenue records and were issued with Pattadar Pass Books with Khata No.591 in the year 1999 itself, and are in receipt of input benefits under ‘Rythu Bandhu’ Scheme, and thus, their possession cannot be held not established for vacating the order whereby the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession and restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties.

10. Appellants further contend that the subject land was in possession of the appellants since 1999 having purchased the same under Sada Bainama, on the basis of which, their names have been mutated in Revenue records, and thus, the trial Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact while dismissing the underlying Interlocutory Applications.

11. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the appellants herein are not in possession of the subject land, and this Court in W.P.No.30102 of 2015, while holding that the appellants herein are not entitled for any relief in the Writ Petition, left the issue open to pursue the remedies open to the appellants to approach the Competent Civil Court or by submitting appropriate applications before the Competent Authority for mutation of their names in the revenue records, if they have in fact acquired any right over the subject property.

12. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that the appellants herein subsequently have filed the subject suit and since, the appellants are not in possession, they are not entitled for grant of any injunction or restraining the respondents herein from alienating the suit schedule property.

13. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that the trial Court had recorded a categorical finding as to the claim of the appellants of they purchasing the suit schedule property stated to be consisting of mango garden and the said crop being sold to one