THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P.No.2724 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.407 of 2009 Common Judgment: C.M.A. No. 407 of 2009 is preferred against the order dated 27.01.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 901 of 2007 in O.S. No. 169 of 2007 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, while C.R.P. No. 2724 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners/appellant Nos. 1 to 4 questioning the order dated 27.01.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Viakarabad, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 15 of 2009 filed by them against the orders, dated 08.05.2007, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 368 of 2006 in O.S. No. 126 of 2006, filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners herein. The appellants and respondents in the C.M.A. are the plaintiffs and defendants in O.S. No. 169 of 2009, while the petitioners and respondents in the C.R.P. are defendants and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 126 of 2006. As both the C.R.P. and C.M.A. are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the C.M.A. The appellants claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Acs.8.29 guntas, Acs.9.39 guntas and As.4.30 guntas situated in Survey Nos.83, 84 and 119 respectively of Chellapur Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They filed suit in O.S. No. 169 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondents for injunction, while the respondents filed suit in O.S. No. 126 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, for perpetual injunction The appellants filed I.A. No. 901 of 2007 in O.S. No. 169 of 2007 seeking temporary injunction, which was contested by the respondents. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, through his order, dated 27.01.2009, dismissed the I.A., holding that the appellants failed to show prima facie title and possession over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present appeal in C.M.A. No. 407 of 2009. On the other hand, the respondents filed suit in O.S. No.126 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, against the appellants seeking injunction simplicitor in respect of the very same property. Along with the suit, they filed I.A. No. 368 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction. The said application was contested by the appellants. Vide order dated 08.05.2007, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, allowed the said I.A., holding that the respondents proved their possession over the suit schedule property and granted temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property, pending trial of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred C.M.A. No. 15 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, who in turn, by order, dated 22.01.2009, confirmed the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. Hence, the appellants filed C.R.P. No. 2724 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, O.S. No. 169 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikaraabad, Ranga Reddy District and O.S. No. 126 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District are filed seeking injunction simplicitor in respect of the very same property. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, having found that the respondents have prima facie established their possession and title over the suit schedule property, granted temporary injunction, and on the other hand, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District dismissed the I.A., filed by the appellants seeking temporary injunction, holding that they failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Courts, on appreciation of the material available on record and especially, Exs.A1 to A6, pahanies, and Exs.A13 to A16, title deeds and pattedar pass books in favour of the respondents herein, came to the conclusion that the respondents have prima facie proved their possession over the suit schedule property and accordingly, granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondents, and this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said findings of fact. However, since both the suits are filed in respect of the very same property, to avoid conflicting judgments, it would be appropriate, if both of them are clubbed together and tried and disposed of. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the C.M.A., and the C.R.P., are disposed of, transferring O.S. No. 126 of 2006 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, to be tried along with O.S. No. 169 of 2007 pending on its file. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, shall make an endeavour to dispose of both the suits expeditiously, and pending disposal of the suits, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:17.08.2009 VGB