[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182 & 183 OF 2008 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.182 OF 2008: Between: Sirapanasetti Venkata Swamy .....APPELLANT AND Sri Kosoori Ranga Raju and others ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.183 OF 2008: Between: Sirapanasetti Venkata Swamy .....APPELLANT AND Sri Kosoori Ranga Raju and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182 & 183 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C., are directed against the order, dated 28.11.2007, in I.A.Nos.977 and 978 of 2007 in O.S.No.298 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, whereunder and whereby, the petitions filed to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.3 to 6, their men and agents i.e., G.P.A. holders from alienating the petition schedule property to third party pending disposal of the suit and ever interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, were dismissed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals may be stated as follows: The appellant stated that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0-79 cents of land in Survey No.278/10, out of which Ac.0-39 ½ cents of land was sold on 23.02.1990 by respondent No.7, who is no other than the brother of appellant, to respondent No.1, without his knowledge and partition by metes and bounds. Respondent No.1 also obtained a sale agreement – cum – G.P.As. from 39 other adjacent land owners, who in turn executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 6. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as vendees tried to encroach the plaint schedule property and therefore, he filed the present petitions. 3. The same is resisted by the respondents contending that the appellant has no right in the property in view of the fact that there is no material on record to show that this particular piece of land was kept joint and on earlier occasions, the entire land to an extent of Ac.7.36 ½ cents was sold by respondent No.1 as G.P.A. holder; that the appellant failed to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-39 ½ cents of land as mentioned in the plaint schedule property. 4. The trial Court upon considering the material on record, dismissed both the petitions filed by the appellant. Challenging the same, the present appeals are filed by the appellant. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant made out a prima facie title for grant of injunction? 6. For grant or refusal of temporary injunction, three important principles are to be established viz., prima facie title, property in question must be shown to be in the possession of appellant/plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit, the balance of convenience must be in his favour, and if the injunction is not granted, an irreparable injury would be caused to the other, which can not be compensated with money. Appellant having filed the suit, it is for him to establish that he has got a prima facie title. Showing prima facie title is a sina qua non for grant of injunction. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petition schedule land alone is kept joint, while dividing the other properties. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the joint property has been sold and there is no material to show that this petition schedule land was kept joint. The said property was sold by respondent No.7 to respondent No.1 under General Power of Attorney - cum - sale deed. So, the initial burden is on the appellant to show that the petition schedule land was kept joint and that respondent No.7 has no right or authority to sell the land to respondent No.1. There is no material at this stage, to show that the property in question was kept joint. Therefore, prima facie the appellant had no title to the property. Similarly, he has not filed any documents to show that he was in possession and enjoyment in respect of the petition schedule land within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. Therefore, the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for interim injunction. In view of the fact that he failed to establish prima facie title and also the possession, as on the date of filing of the suit, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. In view of the fact that the suit is pending, any observations made in these appeals, are only for the purpose of disposal of these appeals and uninfluenced by the same, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 18, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182 & 183 OF 2008 June 18, 2010