JUDGMENT : A. Abhishek Reddy, J. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order, dated 11.03.2019, passed in I.A.No.740 of 2018 in O.S.No.569 of 2018, whereby the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, has dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants herein seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. 2. The appellants, eight in number, are the plaintiffs in the suit filed seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents Nos.1 to 7 herein, who were arrayed as defendants Nos.1 to 7 in the suit. The suit is in respect of the land bearing survey No.2 (Peradu) in Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict (hereinafter called as ‘the suit schedule land’). 3. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 4. This case has a rather interesting and a chequered history. Interestingly, all the parties to the litigation are claiming through a person by the name of Smt.Moti Bai. Four sets of litigants are claiming through a single individual named Smt.Moti Bai, but having different identities. One set of litigants i.e. the plaintiffs and their vendors are claiming through one Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh, who died prior to 1967. On the other hand, the other three sets of litigants are claiming through Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh. Out of the three sets, only two sets are before this Court i.e. R.1 to R.6 as one set of persons, and R.7 as second set; the third set, namely Narpath Singh has given up his claim. Both R.1 to R.6 on one hand, and R.7, on the other hand, claim that Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh died on 05.08.1992. 5. The claim of the plaintiffs is that originally one Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh, was the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule land. Smt.Moti Bai died intestate prior to 1967, leaving behind her only daughter namely Smt.Raju Bai, W/o.Sardar Gurmukh Singh. When the revenue authorities had wrongly entered the suit schedule land as “Lawaris” in the revenue records, a writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.5553 of 1980, and this Court vide order, dated 30.07.1987, had set aside the order declaring the property as Lawaris. 6. When the revenue authorities had wrongly entered the suit schedule land as “Lawaris” in the revenue records, a writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.5553 of 1980, and this Court vide order, dated 30.07.1987, had set aside the order declaring the property as Lawaris. 6. Subsequently, the grandson of Smt.Moti Bai i.e. son of Smt.Raju Bai, by name Sardar Deva Singh, filed an application, dated 13.04.1994, before the Revenue Divisional Officer (in short ‘the RDO’), Chevella, for succession and for mutating his name in the revenue records. The RDO, Chevella, vide proceedings No.D/4554/94, dated 16.12.1995, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer (in short ‘MRO’) to take necessary action for mutating the name of Sardar Deva Singh in the revenue records. However, when the MRO failed to pass any orders on the application to mutate his name, Sardar Deva Singh approached the High Court by way of writ petition being W.P.No.24701 of 1998. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 02.09.1998 directing the MRO to consider and dispose of the application for grant of succession. Thereafter, the revenue authorities, after conducting due enquiry, issued proceedings No.B/3235/98, dated 18.09.1999, declaring that the Sardar Deva Singh was entitled to the succession of late Smt.Moti Bai. The necessary amendments were carried out in the revenue record, and Sardar Deva Singh was issued pattedar passbook and title deed. 7. Meanwhile, another person, namely Sardar Narpat Singh claiming to be the son of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh filed two revision petitions before the Joint Collector: one against the orders of the MRO mutating the name of Sardar Deva Singh in the revenue records; another seeking succession in his favour i.e. Narpath Singh. By order, dated 11.12.2000, the Joint Collector, while setting aside the order of the MRO, dated 18.09.1999, declared the suit schedule land as ‘Lawaris’. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 11.12.2000, Sardar Deva Singh again approached the High Court by way of writ petition, namely W.P.No.1214 of 2001. By order, dated 20.08.2002, the High Court quashed the orders of the Joint Collector, dated 11.12.2000, and sustained the grant of passbook in favour of Sardar Deva Singh confirming his possession. 9. By order, dated 20.08.2002, the High Court quashed the orders of the Joint Collector, dated 11.12.2000, and sustained the grant of passbook in favour of Sardar Deva Singh confirming his possession. 9. Meanwhile, some third parties filed O.S.No.139 of 2002 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule land from Sardar Deva Singh. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Sardar Deva Singh died; his son, Sardar Joga Singh was brought on record. However, vide Judgment, dated 17.11.2008, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. 10. Thereafter, Sardar Deva Singh along with his son and grandson Sardar Joga Singh and Sardar Harmeender Singh respectively parted with the land in the following manner: (a) an extent of Ac.0.11 gts., of land was sold to plaintiff No.1 namely Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy through registered sale deed, dated 20.06.2000, bearing registered document No.2532/2000. (b) An extent of Ac.0.10 gts., of land was sold to plaintiff No.2, namely B.Arun Kumar, through registered sale deed, dated 20.06.2000, bearing registered document No.2531/2000. (c) An extent of Ac.0.09 gts., of land was sold to the father of the plaintiff No.3, namely Sabada Yadaiah, through registered sale deed, dated 20.06.2000, bearing registered document No.2533/2000. Plaintiff No.3, namely Sabada Vijay Kumar, is claiming through a registered Gift Deed, dated 12.06.2006, executed by his father Mr.Sabada Yadaiah vide document No.8354/2006. (d) Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 have executed registered Agreements of Sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with possession in favour of Plaintiff No.4 vide documents bearing No.8297/2010, dated 18.09.2010, 9990/2010 dated 19.11.2010 and 9989/2010 dated 02.11.2010 respectively for the extents purchased by them through registered sale deeds. Plaintiff No.4 is also claiming an extent of Ac.0.30 gts., through registered agreement of sale cum irrevocable general power of attorney with possession, dated 22.02.2010, executed by Sardar Than Singh (Brother of Sardar Deva Singh) bearing document No.5688/2010. (e) For an extent of Ac.0.21 gts., Sardar Deva Singh executed a registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney, dated 25.11.1999, in favour of plaintiffs No.5 and 6, namely Mr.K.Prabhakar Reddy and Mr.G.Penta Reddy, bearing registered document No.4719 of 1999. (f) an extent of Ac.0.09 gts., of land was sold to plaintiff No.7, namely Mr.R.Ramesh Yadav, through registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession, dated 25.11.1999, bearing registered document No.4720/1999. (f) an extent of Ac.0.09 gts., of land was sold to plaintiff No.7, namely Mr.R.Ramesh Yadav, through registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession, dated 25.11.1999, bearing registered document No.4720/1999. (g) Plaintiff No.4 along with plaintiffs No.5 to 7 executed a registered Development Agreement cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, dated 22.05.2017, in favour of plaintiff No.8 vide registered document No.4998/2017 for an extent of Ac.1.20 gts. (h) Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 represented by the General Power of Attorney holder i.e., M/s.Priority Homes Pvt.Ltd (Plaintiff No.4) has executed two sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.8 and its owner Mr.Raj Kumar Malpani vide document bearing No.11934/2018, dated 11.10.2018 for an extent of Ac.0.10 gts., and document bearing No.11936/2018, dated 11.10.2018 for an extent of Ac.0.20 gts. Another registered sale deed, dated 11.10.2018, has been executed by Sardar Than Singh, represented by his General Power of Attorney M/s.Priority Homes Pvt.Ltd., in favour of Plaintiffs No.4 and 8 for an extent of Ac.0.30 gts., vide document bearing No.11935/2018. 11. In the partition suit in O.S.No.349 of 1996 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad West & South, Ranga Reddy District at Saroor Nagar, the suit schedule land was divided into equal shares i.e., Ac.0.30 gts., each between the legal heirs of Sardar Deva Singh and Sardar Than Singh. Sardar Joga Singh, along with his sister, Ms.Sukhmindar Kaur, obtained a succession decree in O.S.No.459 of 2009, vide judgment and decree, dated 03.02.2010. Thereafter, they made an application to the District Collector for mutating their names. The Collector vide Lr.No.D1/7587/2010, directed the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, to mutate the suit schedule land in the name of Sardar Joga Singh and Ms.Sukhmindar Kaur. 12. The claims of some other third parties who had filed objections before the MRO were rejected. The defendants Nos.1 to 6 herein initially also filed their objections before the Tahasildar, but subsequently they withdrew their claim by filing an affidavit, dated 23.07.2011. Consequently, by order, dated 31.12.2013, in file No.D/993/2010, the Tahasildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, granted mutation in favour of Sardar Joga Singh, Ms.Sukhmindar Kaur for half the share and the other half share in the name of Sardar Deva Singh’s Brother, namely Sardar Than Singh. Aggrieved by the above said orders of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an appeal before the RDO, Rajendranagar. However, later on, on 15.12.2014, they withdrew the same. Aggrieved by the above said orders of the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an appeal before the RDO, Rajendranagar. However, later on, on 15.12.2014, they withdrew the same. In the memo for withdrawal, they clearly reiterated that they have no claim or right over the suit schedule land. Therefore, by order, dated 13.02.2015, R.D.O., Rajendranagar confirmed the orders of the Tahasildar. 13. Thereafter, defendants Nos.1 to 6 herein and others filed revisions challenging the order of the R.D.O., Rajendranagar, dated 13.02.2015, before the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector vide order, dated 27.06.2015 in file No.D1/538/2015, set aside the said orders of the MRO and RDO, and directed that the entries in the revenue records be recorded as “disputed”. Thereafter, the plaintiffs herein filed C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015 against the orders of the Joint Collector in the High Court; by a common order, dated 13.04.2016, this Court set aside the order of the Joint Collector, confirmed the patta granted in favour of Sardar Deva Singh. 14. Pending the above proceedings, the defendant No.7 filed O.S.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other reliefs. In the said suit, an Interlocutory Application seeking temporary injunction was filed, but no orders were passed in the I.A. The said suit is still pending consideration. In the suit filed by the defendant No.7, the defendant No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to implead himself, but the same was dismissed on 21.11.2016. Further, it is contended that the defendants No.1 to 6 and the defendant No.7 are claiming to be the legal heir of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Sardar Gopal Singh who died on 05.08.1992; both the defendants Nos.1 to 6 and the defendant No.7 are relying on the very same Death Certificate, which cannot be true as they do not claim that she is their common ancestor or that they are related to each other, Moreover, though the said late Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh died prior to 1967, the defendants No.1 to 6 and 7 are claiming that Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh died on 05.08.1992. 15. 15. Further, when the local police tried to interfere with the possession of the property, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a writ petition before the High Court vide W.P.No.27604 of 2014, and the same was disposed of recording that the police were not interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and in the said writ petition, the defendant No.7 herein was arrayed as respondent No.5, which establishes that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land. When some of the defendants tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land, the plaintiffs Nos.4 and 8 filed a suit for injunction being O.S.No.1254 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. In the said suit, an ad interim injunction order was passed on 09.08.2017. Subsequently, the plaintiffs with a view to develop the land, submitted necessary plans to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (in short ‘GHMC’) and the GHMC granted permission in file No.76737/03/05/2016/HO, permit No.53309/HO/SZ/ Cir.6/2016, dated 08.08.2017. But, after the permission was granted by the GHMC, defendants Nos.1 to 6 filed W.P.No.29777 of 2017 before this Court seeking a declaration that the building permission granted by the GHMC in favour of plaintiffs Nos.4 and 8 is illegal, and is in violation of provisions of GHMC Act. When a learned Single Judge of this Court granted status quo order on 04.09.2017 in WPMP No.37066 of 2017, the plaintiff No.4 filed Writ Appeal challenging the order of the status quo; the said writ appeal was numbered as W.A.No.324 of 2018. By order, dated 21.03.2018, a learned Coordinate Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge granting status quo. 16. When the defendants again started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, on 25.04.2018, the plaintiffs were constrained to lodge a complaint before the Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station. The FIR was registered against the defendants, being F.I.R.No.664 of 2017. Thereafter, the police did not take any further action on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. In fact, the police directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for necessary protection. The FIR was registered against the defendants, being F.I.R.No.664 of 2017. Thereafter, the police did not take any further action on the ground that the matter is civil in nature. In fact, the police directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for necessary protection. Thereafter, the defendants started to interfere again with the construction activity, the plaintiffs were constrained to approach the Civil Court by way of filing the present suit which was numbered as O.S.No.569 of 2018. In the said suit, they also filed an interlocutory application being I.A.No.740 of 2018 seeking ad interim injunction order. But the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge by misconstruing the earlier orders of the High Court, without appreciating the true facts, has dismissed the said interlocutory application, against which, the present C.M.A. is filed. 17. Per contra, the case of the defendants Nos.1 to 6 is that the claim of the plaintiffs, more specifically the claim of plaintiff No.8, is a bogus and false one. The plaintiff No.8 is notoriously known for investing in disputed properties, creating documents to suit his needs, and basing on those created documents, he obtains permission from the GHMC and files a suit for injunction against the real owners. Once the temporary injunction orders are granted by the Court, based on the fake documents, the plaintiff No.8 will construct over the properties. 18. Moreover, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 are the real legal heirs of Smt.Moti Bai, who was the wife of Gopal Singh. The said Moti Bai had a son by name Jandha Singh, who died intestate leaving behind the defendants Nos.1 to 6 as his legal heirs. After the death of Smt.Moti Bai, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 have succeeded to the suit schedule land. In the earlier round of litigation between Sardar Deva Singh and another it was categorically held that Sardar Deva Singh should approach the Civil Court for getting the succession of late Smt.Moti Bai, but he did not do so during his life time. After the death of Sardar Deva Singh, his son Joga Singh filed a suit for declaring him as successor. Even though initially a decree was granted in his favour, the said decree was later set aside by an appellate Court. The order of the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, is still in subsistence. 19. After the death of Sardar Deva Singh, his son Joga Singh filed a suit for declaring him as successor. Even though initially a decree was granted in his favour, the said decree was later set aside by an appellate Court. The order of the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, is still in subsistence. 19. Furthermore, whatever orders or mutation the said Sardar Deva Singh and his legal heirs obtained before the revenue authorities are all without any jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2005 had clearly directed that the parties should approach the Civil Court for getting a declaration that they are the legal heirs of late Smt.Moti Bai. But till date, the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs have not approached the Civil Court for getting the said declaration. Therefore the plaintiffs do not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule land. The trial Court after appreciating the documents filed by the parties has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application. 20. Lastly, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 are in physical possession of the suit schedule land; the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule land. Hence, the order passed in I.A. by the trial Court is legally justified; it does not call for any interference. 21. The stand taken by the respondent No.7, who is also claiming through Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh, who died on 05.08.1992, is also on the same lines as that of the defendants Nos.1 to 6. Moreover, the respondent No.7 has further contended that in respect of the very same property, the plaintiffs Nos.4 and 8 had earlier filed a suit, which was numbered as O.S.No.1254 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy. Thus, the present suit itself is barred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the said suit, the plaintiff Nos.4 and 8 had initially obtained interim injunction orders by suppressing some material facts. But subsequently, on contest, the said I.A. was dismissed. The plaintiffs do not have any right, title or interest in the property; they are not in physical possession of the same as held by the Hon’ble High Court as well as by the various revenue authorities. Thus, even if it is found that they are in possession, it is only permissive and not physical possession. The plaintiffs do not have any right, title or interest in the property; they are not in physical possession of the same as held by the Hon’ble High Court as well as by the various revenue authorities. Thus, even if it is found that they are in possession, it is only permissive and not physical possession. The plaintiffs cannot be allowed to change the nature of the property pending the various litigations before the various fora. Further, it is contended that even though the total extent of suit schedule land is only Ac.1-20 guntas, a bare perusal of the sale deeds, agreements of sale, and development agreement relied by the plaintiffs clearly reveals that the total extent of the property claimed by the plaintiff is almost Acs.2-10 guntas. Therefore, the sale deeds relied by the plaintiffs are bogus and sham documents, created only for the purpose of the litigation. In the absence of any declaration by the competent Civil Court that Sardar Deva Singh is the legal heir of late Smt.Moti Bai, the documents executed in favour of the plaintiffs by Sardar Deva Singh or his legal heirs will not create any right or title in the plaintiffs. When Sardar Deva Singh himself does not have any title, he cannot pass on a better title to his vendees. The sale documents relied by the plaintiffs are created only for the purpose of grabbing the suit schedule land. 22. Furthermore, in the earlier round of litigation between Sardar Deva Singh and Sardar Narpath Singh, the High Court had directed the parties to obtain a succession certificate from a competent civil Court. But till date, they have not done so. Sardar Deva Singh, during his life time, did not file any civil suit to get any succession certificate. But after his death, in the year 2005, his son Sardar Joga Singh filed a suit being O.S.No.459 of 2009 claiming that he may be declared as the legal heir of Sardar Deva Singh, and as the grandson of late Smt.Moti Bai. In the said suit, his sister Ms.Sukhmindar Kaur was also impleaded as plaintiff No.2. The said suit was decreed ex parte, vide judgment dated 03.02.2010, by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolintan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar. 23. In the said suit, his sister Ms.Sukhmindar Kaur was also impleaded as plaintiff No.2. The said suit was decreed ex parte, vide judgment dated 03.02.2010, by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolintan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendra Nagar. 23. The defendant No.7 on coming to know about the same has filed a First Appeal, namely A.S. No. 120 of 2014, for seeking cancellation of the said judgment and decree obtained by the son of Sardar Deva Singh. The First Appeal was allowed on 17.09.2018 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, by setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 03.02.2010, and the order in the First Appeal has become final. Thus, none of the orders obtained either by Sardar Deva Singh or by his legal heirs from the revenue authorities confer any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Even if any names were mutated in the revenue record, they will not confer any right to the parties. The plaintiffs are not in physical possession of the land in question and that the trial Court was right in dismissing the I.A. filed by them seeking temporary injunction. 24. The respondent No. 7 further pleads that the case of respondents Nos.1 to 6 is also a bogus one. They are not related to late Smt.Moti Bai. Late Smt.Moti Bai was the wife of Sardar Gopal Singh. Respondent No.7 and his sister are the only legal heirs of late Smt.Moti Bai, W/o. Gopal Singh. Even his sister died on 11.11.2014. Further, in 2011, when the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 7 and others tried to illegally trespass into the suit schedule property, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs. The said suit was numbered as O.S.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The same is still pending consideration. Furthermore, the Implead Petition filed by the defendants Nos.1 to 6 in the said suit was also dismissed; the said order has become final. Thus, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants Nos.1 to 6 are bogus parties, they have nothing to do with the property of late Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh, who is the mother of defendant No.7. Hence, mere obtaining of a building permission from the GHMC does not confer any title to the parties. Thus, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants Nos.1 to 6 are bogus parties, they have nothing to do with the property of late Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh, who is the mother of defendant No.7. Hence, mere obtaining of a building permission from the GHMC does not confer any title to the parties. The Trial Court has, thus, rightly dismissed the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs. 25. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted the following contentions: (i) the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the interlocutory application is erroneous one. For, it has been passed without appreciating the true facts or the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court has completely misconstrued the earlier orders passed by the High Court and has come to a wrong conclusion. (ii) The trial Court has grossly misconstrued the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002. By misreading the earlier Judgments, the Trial Court has wrongly concluded that the vendors of the plaintiffs do not have a marketable title as the parties have not complied with the earlier direction given by the Hon’ble High Court in the said earlier writ petitions. (iii) Having come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land and that they are making construction pursuant to the permission given by the GHMC, the Trial Court has wrongly held that the possession is only permissive, and that the nature of the land cannot be allowed to be changed by the plaintiffs under the guise of the interim orders. (iv) The trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the plaintiffs do not have any title in a suit for perpetual injunction, whereas it should have confined itself to see whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie title, possession, balance of convenience, and if any irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs or not, if injunction were not granted. (v) The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Sardar Deva Singh and Than Singh, the sons of late Raju Bai (grandsons of late Smt.Moti Bai), had 50% share each in the property. Initially Sardar Deva Singh had sold the entire area without making Than Singh a party to the said sale deeds. (v) The trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Sardar Deva Singh and Than Singh, the sons of late Raju Bai (grandsons of late Smt.Moti Bai), had 50% share each in the property. Initially Sardar Deva Singh had sold the entire area without making Than Singh a party to the said sale deeds. But subsequently, after finding the name of Than Singh in the revenue records, the plaintiffs, to be on safe side, have got the sale deeds executed by Than Singh also to the extent of his share i.e. Ac.0.30 guntas. But the trial Court, without appreciating the said fact, has wrongly concluded that “the total area purchased by the plaintiffs is more than Ac.1-20 guntas”. (vi) The plaintiffs have a valid building permission to construct, which was granted by the competent authorities, after finding that they are having prima facie title and possession. Therefore the trial Court ought not to have disregarded the same. (vii) The learned trial Court did not take into consideration the well settled principles of law for granting an interim injunction orders i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It has illegally dismissed the I.A. 26. Per contra, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M.Das Mohapatra, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6, and Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, have vehemently contended that the trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs could not establish prima facie case. The balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants; no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs. The vendors of the plaintiffs have not abided by the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002. In the absence of any declaration to the effect that the vendors of the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Smt.Moti Bai, the sale deeds executed by Sardar Deva Singh and his legal heirs, and by Than Singh have no legal sanctity. In the absence of any declaration by the competent Civil Court that Sardar Deva Singh is the legal heir of Smt.Moti Bai, the plaintiffs cannot claim that they are having any title to the suit schedule land. In the absence of any declaration by the competent Civil Court that Sardar Deva Singh is the legal heir of Smt.Moti Bai, the plaintiffs cannot claim that they are having any title to the suit schedule land. The suit filed by the son of Sardar Deva Singh to declare him as the successor of Sardar Deva Singh, who is the grandson of late Smt.Moti Bai, was also set aside by the competent Civil Court in a First Appeal filed by the defendant No.7. Thus, the mutations done in the revenue records pursuant to the said decree obtained by the son of Sardar Deva Singh are also non est in the eye of law. The Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015 has also held that revenue entries are only temporary and will not confer any right or title to the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ananthula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2033 . 27. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6, Sri M.Das Mohapatra, the learned counsel for respondents No.2, and Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Perused the record. 28. A bare perusal of the order impugned in the appeal reveals that the learned Judge has relied on the common judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, and also on the observations made in C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015. Perused the record. 28. A bare perusal of the order impugned in the appeal reveals that the learned Judge has relied on the common judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, and also on the observations made in C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015. The trial Court has held the following points against the plaintiffs while dismissing the I.A.:- (1) In the absence of any declaration by a competent Civil Court that Sardar Deva Singh is the legal representative of late Moti Bai, as directed by the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001 and CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015, the legal heirs or persons claiming through Sardar Deva Singh or Than Singh will not have any right or title to the suit schedule property; (2) The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001 has held that the possession of land by Sardar Deva Singh is only provisional till he gets a declaration from a competent Civil Court that he is the legal heir of Smt.Moti Bai; (3) that the succession decree obtained by the son and daughter of Sardar Deva Singh i.e. Sardar Joga Singh and Sukhminder Kaur, in O.S.No.459 of 2009, dated 03.02.2010, was set aside in the First Appeal No.120 of 2014 filed by the defendant No.7; (4) The mutations made in the revenue records are purely provisional in nature, and will not confer any right to deal with the property. The sale deeds executed by the Sardar Deva Singh, his legal heirs and Than Singh, cannot convey any right or title to the suit property as they have not complied with the directions of the High Court in the above referred Writ Petitions and Civil Revision Petitions; (5) Sukhminder Kaur is not a party to the sale deeds. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title over the interest of Sukhminder Kaur. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title over the interest of Sukhminder Kaur. (6) They have not approached the Court with clean hands; (7) The plaintiffs have obtained nominal registered sale deeds, and trying to occupy the suit property basing on the provisional entries in revenue records; (8) The Government is not added as a party even though the Government is a necessary and proper party; (9) The Injunction granted by the High Court not to change the nature of land, will be defeated if injunction is granted in favour of any person; (10) The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs. If any injunction were granted, it will sub-serve the interest of the party who will change the physical features of the property under the guise of the temporary injunction. 29. In order to better appreciate the rival contentions made by the parties, and also to appreciate as to whether the order of the trial Court impugned in this appeal is legally sustainable or not, it is necessary to extract the relevant observations made by this Court, in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002 while setting aside the order of the Joint Collector declaring that the suit schedule land is ‘Lawaris’, which are heavily relied by the trial court while dismissing the I.A. for injunction: Coming to the question of inter-se disputes between the petitioners, the question that falls for consideration is whether Sardar Sardar Deva Singh can claim the title over the land or Sardar Narpat Singh can claim the title over the land? They are travelling in diametrically in opposite direction. One side it is claimed that Moti Bai was W/o.Gopal Singh and another side it is claimed that Moti Bai was W/o.Zanda Singh. The Government is not in a position to clarify whether the land in question was originally belonged to Moti Bai W/o.Gopal Singh or Moti Bai W/o.Zenda Singh and it is surprising to know that as to who is the husband of so called Moti Bai. The Government is not able to say in all the orders before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer or the Joint Collector as to what is the name of husband of the Moti Bai. The question that arises for consideration is whether (inter-se disputes) between the parties can be decided by the authorities under the R.O.R. Act? .... The Government is not able to say in all the orders before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer or the Joint Collector as to what is the name of husband of the Moti Bai. The question that arises for consideration is whether (inter-se disputes) between the parties can be decided by the authorities under the R.O.R. Act? .... Against any order passed under Section 4, appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer and revision lies under Section 9. But the question for consideration is that in any dispute with regard to survey receipts, would it be open for the Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the same under Section 4? The section is very clear that it is only after succession or survivorship become final such entry has to be carried out in the revenue records. But the very succession/survivorship itself is in dispute between the parties, viz., whether Sardar Deva Singh is the legal heir of Moti Bai or Sardar Narpat Singh is the legal representative of Moti Bai, the same cannot be decided by the authorities under the Act. When both the parties are claiming the property by succession being the Legal representatives of Moti Bai it would not be appropriate for the revenue authority to decide the same and it has to be decided in an appropriate court of law. It is only when the succession becomes final that can be brought before the Mandal Revenue Officer for mutation of revenue records. The Joint Collector has quite rightly observed that in case of claim for succession, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought not to have conducted an enquiry and decided one way or the other and that is what Section 4 also contains and the order of the Joint Collector observing that it is open for the parties to approach the Civil Court to seek succession in respect of Moti Bai cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to law and it is well within the parameters of R.O.R. Act. The learned counsel appearing for Sardar Deva Singh, however submits that the very revision filed by Sardar Narpath Singh under Section 9 is not maintainable and therefore, the revision itself ought to have been rejected at the threshold. The learned counsel appearing for Sardar Deva Singh, however submits that the very revision filed by Sardar Narpath Singh under Section 9 is not maintainable and therefore, the revision itself ought to have been rejected at the threshold. But in view of the fact that the land has now been taken out of the clutches of the Government, it is for the parties to establish their succession or survivorship and consequential right/interest which may accrue to them by virtue of any document or wills or settlements before the appropriate forum and not before the revenue authorities under any circumstances. Therefore, this finding of the Joint Collector is sustained and it is left open to the parties to initiate the succession proceedings before the appropriate Court and establish their inter-se claim before the said Court. It will be open for the Mandal Revenue Officer to take notice of the final pronouncement of the court for purpose of mutation in revenue records protect the interests of the party who ultimately succeeds as also the interest of the Government who may take recourse to the provisions under the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act. It is not in dispute that Sardar Deva Singh was granted passbook under R.O.R. Act but that issuance of passbook is not final, but it is only prima facie documents been placed before this Court to infer that Sardar Deva Singh was given passbook under the R.O.R. Act. It is therefore necessary that the possession should continue in his hands until the succession becomes final between the parties. However, it is made clear that mere possession of land by him by virtue of the order does not confer any right or title on the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land by Sardar Deva Singh until their dispute between Sardar Deva Singh and Sardar Narpath Singh is settled in a court of law. ... Accordingly, the order of the Joint Collector in so far as it relates to custody of land with the Mandal Revenue Officer is set aside and the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Civil Court for establishing their succession. ... Accordingly, the order of the Joint Collector in so far as it relates to custody of land with the Mandal Revenue Officer is set aside and the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Civil Court for establishing their succession. It is further made clear that Sardar Deva Singh shall not change the nature of the land in question and shall not alienate or create any encumbrances over the property in any manner until the dispute between Sardar Deva Singh, Petitioner in W.P.No.1214 of 2001 and Sardar Narpat Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14198 of 2011 are settled before the civil Court as directed above. (Emphasis added) 30. A bare reading of the above direction makes it bundantly clear that the High Court while dealing with the Writ Petition was only dealing with the inter se dispute between Sardar Deva Singh and Narpat Singh. It is well accepted principle of law that any findings or observations made in a particular case are confined to the parties to the litigation on dispute and the observations or findings are not in rem. Admittedly, in this case, Narpat Singh himself has withdrawn from the litigation and he has filed a petition dated 17.06.2013 before the Deputy Collector and the Tahasildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in proceedings No.D/993/2010, withdrawing his claim over the suit schedule property and has also given his consent for mutating the name of the Sardar Joga Singh. The same was accepted by the Tahasildar vide order, dated 31.12.2013. Therefore, the observations or directions made by the High Court to the effect that Sardar Deva Singh or Narpat Singh should get a succession certificate from a competent civil Court pales into insignificance when one of the parties to the dispute has withdrawn his claim. 31. The trial Court has misconstrued the observations made by this Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2011, dated 20.08.2002, and has wrongly concluded that in the absence of any succession certificate granted by the competent Civil Court, Sardar Deva Singh or his legal heirs will not get any title to the property. The litigation before the revenue authorities and the High Court was between the vendors of the plaintiffs on one hand, and Sardar Narpat Singh, who also claimed to be the legal heir of Moti Bai W/o.Gopal Singh. The litigation before the revenue authorities and the High Court was between the vendors of the plaintiffs on one hand, and Sardar Narpat Singh, who also claimed to be the legal heir of Moti Bai W/o.Gopal Singh. But subsequently, the said Sardar Narpat Singh gave up his claim, and is not even a party to the present proceedings. Therefore, the observations, if any, made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, are confined to the parties to that litigation. For, it is not an observation made in rem. The trial Court has also relied on the following observations made in C.R.P. filed by Sardar Joga Singh and his sister against the orders of the Joint Collector, dated 27.06.2015, in Revision Case Nos.D1/538 of 2015 and D1/1215 of 2015 respectively: … For the present the orders of the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahsildar dated 31.12.2013 and the orders in Appeal thereagainst passed by Revenue Divisional Officer on 13.02.2015 are not final in scope or content. They are liable to be treated as provisional. As was rightly observed by this Court the judgment rendered in W.P.Nos.1214 & 14198 of 2001 whoever is the party who succeeds in establishing the right of succession to the estate of late Smt.Moti Bail, their names could then get mutated in the revenue records and necessary pattadar pass books or title deeds can be conferred on such parties, if required, by cancelling the existing pattadar passbook or title deed which is already conferred on Sardar Deva Singh. More importantly there is no justification whatsoever for the Joint Collector to direct the MRO to record in the revenue records relating to pattadar and occupant columns with regard to land in question as “disputed” without cancelling the Pattadar Passbook of Sri Sardar Deva Singh. 32. The learned trial Court has erred in relying heavily on the observations made in the Civil Revision Petitions while dismissing the interlocutory application filed for injunction. The defendants cannot rely on the above said observations made therein and claim that the legal heirs of Sardar Deva Singh did not obtain any succession certification, and hence, the sales made by the legal heirs are null and void. The trial Court without appreciating the true facts and misconstruing the judgment of the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, has come to the wrong conclusion and dismissed the I.A. 33. The trial Court without appreciating the true facts and misconstruing the judgment of the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, has come to the wrong conclusion and dismissed the I.A. 33. Another glaring error committed by the trial Court is with regard to its observations that the Government is not made a party to the present litigation. This view is also incorrect in light of the fact that this Court in W.P.No.5553 of 1980, dated 30.07.1987, W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, and C.R.P.Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015, dated 13.04.2016, has repeatedly held that the Government cannot claim any title to the suit schedule property. Admittedly, it is only when the lands in question are patta lands, and the pattedar dies without leaving any legal heirs, the said lands can be declared as ‘Lawaris’ under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Escheats & Bona Vacantia Act. 34. In view of the clear finding given by the High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, to the effect that the lands are patta lands and that for the Government to claim the lands as government lands they have to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974, the High Court has held as under: ……Once this court held that the Government has no jurisdiction to issue notice until and unless the procedure contained under Section 8 is followed and they cannot have any right to occupy the land merely because the land was not cultivated and recorded as padava. If the land is kept fallow (padava) it does not convey any right on the Government to occupy it. All the padava lands cannot be said to Government lands nor Government has distinguished since it is a Padava the same belongs to Government. Under those circumstances, till such time proper declaration is made by the Civil Court, under Section 8 of the Act, the Government have no power or jurisdiction to interfere with such land. It is for the parties to claim the benefit before the appropriate forum but not for the Government to claim, as if it is a Government land. 35. The above finding of the learned Single Judge and the legal position has not been challenged by the government and the same has become final. It is for the parties to claim the benefit before the appropriate forum but not for the Government to claim, as if it is a Government land. 35. The above finding of the learned Single Judge and the legal position has not been challenged by the government and the same has become final. There cannot be any doubt about the above legal position, merely because the lands are kept fallow or padava, they will vest with the government, unless the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974, the government cannot claim any patta land as government land. The government having failed to file a suit for declaration as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, and as directed by the learned Single Judge, cannot claim any interest or title to the suit schedule property. 36. In CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015, vide common order, dated 13.04.2016, this Court observed as under: ... When once this Court has set aside the earlier orders of the Joint Collector and held, in the course of the said judgment, that possession of the land in dispute is in the hands of Sardar Deva Singh and when once MRO was directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land by Sardar Deva Singh as the Pattadar Passbook was issued to him, until the dispute between Sardar Deva Singh and Sri Narpath Singh is settled in a court of law, directions now issued by the Joint Collector to alter the revenue records by making an entry in pattadar and possessor column as “disputed” will only defeat the earlier injunction granted against the MRO by this Court. Such a course of action amounts to neutralising the judgment of this Court and hence, it is impermissible to do so by the Joint Collector apart from being plainly unjust. 37. When the Sub-Registrar refused to register the Development Agreement executed in favour of plaintiff No.8 by plaintiff Nos.4 to 7, an appeal was filed before the District Registrar vide Proceedings No.3769/G1/2017, and the same was allowed vide order, dated 19.06.2017, holding that the land in question is a patta land and no government interest is involved whatsoever. Consequently, the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to register the Development Agreement. 38. Consequently, the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to register the Development Agreement. 38. Therefore, the finding given by the trial Court that the suit schedule lands are “government lands” is totally misplaced. Such an observation has been made without taking into consideration the observations made by the High Court in the above mentioned cases. 39. Therefore, there is no legal necessity for the plaintiffs to include the Government as party respondent, more particularly, in a suit for injunction when there is no interference from the Revenue, or the other Government authorities. 40. Even though much reliance is placed by the trial Court on the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.120 of 2014 filed by defendant No.7 to hold that once the decree passed in O.S.No.459 of 2009 is set aside, the direction issued by the Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14178 of 2001, dated 20.08.2002, and CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015, dated 13.04.2016 are not complied and the sale deeds executed by either Sardar Deva Singh, his legal heirs, or Than Singh will not confer any title to the plaintiffs, the same cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the said directions get nullified when the parties to the litigation compromised the matter, and withdrew their claim. Even if the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459 of 2009 filed by Sardar Deva Singh’s son and daughter, are set aside in First Appeal being A.S.No.120 of 2014 filed by defendant No.7 i.e. Sardar Kartar Singh, it cannot be said that the sale deeds executed by Sardar Deva Singh or his legal heirs during his life time automatically get invalidated. Unless and until the suit filed by the defendant No.7 is decreed in his favour and the registered sale deeds are set aside, the same will have to be construed as valid sale deeds. 41. With regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court that mere entries in the revenue records do not confer any right to the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the same. It is a settled proposition of law that mere entries will not confer any title to the parties. 41. With regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court that mere entries in the revenue records do not confer any right to the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the same. It is a settled proposition of law that mere entries will not confer any title to the parties. But in this case it is seen that right from the earliest point of time the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff are fighting for their rights and approaching various fora for getting the wrong entries corrected by filing various applications and petitions before the competent authorities. The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001, dated 28.08.2002, while deciding the inter se dispute has upheld the order of the Tahsildar in mutating the name of Sardar Deva Singh and has held as under: … However, it is made clear that mere possession of land by him by virtue of the order does not confer any right or title on the petitioner. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land by Sardar Deva Singh until their dispute between Sardar Deva Singh and Sardar Narpath Singh is settled in a court of law…. Accordingly, the order of the Joint Collector in so far as it relates to custody of land with the Mandal Revenue Officer is set aside and the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Civil Court for establishing their succession. It is further made clear that Sardar Deva Singh shall not change the nature of the land in question and shall not alienate or create any encumbrances over the property in any manner until the dispute between Sardar Deva Singh, petitioner in Writ Petition No.1214 of 2001 and Sardar Narpat Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14198 of 2001 are settled before the civil Court as directed above. 42. As observed above, the dispute was only between Sardar Deva Singh and Narpath Singh. Once the parties have settled their inter se dispute and one of the parties has withdraw his claim, the observations made to the effect that the parties should obtain succession certificate gets nullified. The mutation and entries made by the Revenue authorities will be deemed valid unless and until the said mutation orders and entries are set aside, by a higher authority or Court. 43. The mutation and entries made by the Revenue authorities will be deemed valid unless and until the said mutation orders and entries are set aside, by a higher authority or Court. 43. The trial Court has also erred in going into the aspect as to whether the sale deeds executed by Sardar Deva Singh and Than Singh are valid or not, in the absence of Sukhminder Kaur as a signatory to the said sale deeds. The said finding is totally misplaced as neither Sukhminder Kaur, nor her legal heirs, nor or anybody claiming through her are parties before the Court. Therefore, there was no legal justification for the Court to go into that question. If Sukhminder Kaur or anybody claiming through her are aggrieved by the execution of the sale deeds, they will file appropriate cases before the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deeds. Obviously, it is neither for the Court, nor for the defendants No.1 to 7 to take up the case or fight on behalf of a party who is not even before the Court. 44. The observation of the Court that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, is also totally misplaced. The trial court has not properly explained or dealt with the said observations except in making a casual remark to that effect. Neither any reasons are given by the trial court, nor any specific omissions or wrong assertions made by the plaintiffs are cited to hold that the plaintiff have approached the court with unclean hands. 45. Insofar as the finding of the Court that the plaintiffs have obtained nominal sale deeds and trying to occupy the suit property based on the provisional entries in the revenue records is also unfounded. It is contrary to the record. For, the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest i.e. Sardar Deva Singh, right from the inception, is fighting with the revenue authorities for getting his name mutated and for rectification of the entries before various authorities. The proceedings before the various authorities show that he was in physical possession of the land and issued pattadar pass book and title deeds. The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001 and CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015 has found the possession of Sardar Deva Singh and injuncted the MRO from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of land by Sardar Deva Singh. The Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.1214 and 14198 of 2001 and CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015 has found the possession of Sardar Deva Singh and injuncted the MRO from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of land by Sardar Deva Singh. The various orders of the Revenue authorities i.e. MRO and RDO have found that the physical possession of the land is with Sardar Deva Singh or his successors-in-interest. The building permission granted by the GHMC is only after they were satisfied that the plaintiffs are having prima facie title and possession. Moreover, the defendant No.7 himself has filed a suit for declaration of title and possession from the plaintiffs which clearly implies that the physical possession of the lands are with the plaintiffs. All the recitals in the registered sale deeds clearly and in unambiguous terms state that the plaintiffs have been put in physical possession of the suit schedule lands. The photos filed by the plaintiffs show that they are in physical possession of the suit schedule lands. Therefore, the finding that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs are nominal, and they are trying to occupy the lands on the basis of the said sale deeds is totally misplaced and contrary to record. 46. It is a well settled proposition of law that in order to decide an interlocutory application filed in a suit, the Court has to see whether the party approaching the Court has a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and whether any irreparable loss will be sustained by the party, if temporary injunction is not granted or not. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., v. Sriman Narayan and another, (2002) 5 SCC 760 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 7. It is elementary that grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the legal proceeding is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion that court normally applies the following tests: (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. 8. While exercising the discretion that court normally applies the following tests: (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. 8. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remain uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial. The relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before which that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the “balance of convenience” lies. 47. In order to prove that the plaintiffs are having the prima facie title, they have filed the registered sale deeds and registered development agreement in their favour executed by the legal heirs of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jandha Singh, the various proceedings before the revenue authorities and the High Court to establish the fact that they have been litigating right from 1985 to get the revenue records corrected, the building permission, photos showing construction etc. 48. The defendant No.7 has admittedly filed a separate suit in the civil Court, namely O.S.No.223 of 2011, with the following reliefs: Therefore the Plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree declaring that the Plaintiff and the Defendants 17 & 18 are the absolute owners, Pattadhars in respect of the schedule property. (ii) To direct the Defendants 1 to 16 to deliver the physical possession of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.17. (ii) To direct the Defendants 1 to 16 to deliver the physical possession of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.17. (iii) To direct the Defendant No.18 to enter the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendants 17 & 18 as Pattadhar, owner in Revenue Records by deleting Lawaaris in respect of the schedule property. (iv) And consequential relief to declare the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney Document bearing Nos.4719/1999, 4720/1999 dt: 25-11-1999, Registered Sale Deed Document Nos.2531/2000, 2532/2000, 2533/2000 dt : 20-6-2000 and Agreement of Sale-cum-Irrevocable Power of Attorney with possession vide pending Document No.22/2010 dt : 22-2-2010 is null and void not binding on the Plaintiff. 49. When the defendant No.7 himself claims that he is not in physical possession of the suit schedule land, and seeks a declaration to the effect that he along with defendants Nos.17 and 18 in the said suit be declared as absolute owners, pattadars and for delivery of physical possession of the suit schedule property, it cannot be countenanced as to how the trial Court has held that the possession of the plaintiffs is only permissive. Unless and until defendant No.7 succeeds in the suit filed by him, and a decree is granted in his favour declaring him as the owner and pattadar of the suit schedule land, he cannot claim any title, right or interest in the suit property. Therefore, he cannot interfere with the physical possession of the plaintiffs. 50. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs are claiming title through late Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh, who died in the year 1967, whereas the defendants No.1 to 6, as one set, and defendant No.7, as another set, are claiming through Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Sngh, who died on 05.08.1992. 51. A perusal of the record shows that the vendors of the plaintiffs are claiming title through Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Sardar Jhanda Singh, who died before the year 1967, and the lands were shown as “Lawaris” by the revenue authorities in the pahanies from the year 1967 itself. The record reveals that at the earliest point of time, the vendors of the plaintiffs are litigating to declare that the suit schedule lands which were declared as ‘Lawaris’ by the revenue authorities erroneously are patta lands by filing applications before the revenue authorities and also approaching this High Court by way of writ petitions and also C.R.Ps. The record reveals that at the earliest point of time, the vendors of the plaintiffs are litigating to declare that the suit schedule lands which were declared as ‘Lawaris’ by the revenue authorities erroneously are patta lands by filing applications before the revenue authorities and also approaching this High Court by way of writ petitions and also C.R.Ps. On the other hand, both the defendants No.1 to 6 and defendant No.7 are claiming that Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh died in the year 1992. It is only from the year 2011 that they have been fighting before different fora by filing applications. There is absolutely no explanation from the Counsels for the defendant Nos.1 to 6, and the defendant No.7 as to why the defendants No.1 to 7, who claim to be the legal heirs of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh, kept quiet from 1967 till 1992. If they were the real legal heirs, they ought to have filed an application before the revenue authorities to declare the entries in the revenue records as incorrect. But, they have not done so. Another pertinent question that the defendants failed to answer is that if Smt. Moti Bai, W/o. Gopal Singh was really alive till 1992, as contended by the defendants Nos.1 to 7, how the lands could be declared as ‘Lawaris’ in the year 1967? And why she kept quiet during her life time? Any prudent person would definitely make appropriate applications or file appeal before the concerned authorities for rectification of the records if any wrong entry is made. But, in this case, Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh, through whom the defendants No.1 to 6 and 7 are claiming, maintained a studied silence during her life time for the reason best known to her. 52. As seen from the record, the defendants Nos.1 to 6 are blowing hot and cold before different fora at different times. Before the MRO and RDO, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have filed a memo to the effect that they do not have any claim to the suit schedule property; they also withdrew the appeal filed by them before the RDO in File No.27534 of 2014. But subsequently, before the Joint Collector they have filed a revision claiming that they have interest in the suit schedule property. But subsequently, before the Joint Collector they have filed a revision claiming that they have interest in the suit schedule property. Even though, by a common order, dated 13.04.2016, passed in CRP Nos.3197 and 3225 of 2015, this Court has set aside the order of the Joint Collector, dated 27.06.2015, they have not preferred any S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the same. Therefore, the order of the MRO as well as the RDO hold good and the findings recorded there have become final. 53. Moreover, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 had filed a separate suit in O.S.No.1575 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for declaration to declare them as the legal heirs of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o. Gopal Singh, and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant therein from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. But subsequently, they filed a withdrawal memo, dated 24.12.2014, praying the Court to dismiss the said suit against the defendants therein as not pressed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants, they again filed a petition to restore the suit without informing/putting the defendants therein on notice, curiously, the suit was restored and ex parte decree was obtained by the defendant Nos.1 to 6. Thereafter, when the defendant Nos.1 to 6 tried to execute the decree, the petitioners came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file C.R.P.No.5514 of 2018 before the High Court. By order dated 20.09.2018, in I.A. No. 2 of 2018, the High Court stayed the E.P.No.129/2016 in O.S.No.1575 of 2014. 54. The decision reported in Ananthula Sudhakar’s case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, in this particular case, the respondents No.1 to 6 have themselves filed a memo to the effect that they do not any have claim to the subject property before the Revenue Divisional Officer and also in the suit filed by them before the Civil Court. Moreover, there is ample evidence to show that the plaintiffs are having physical possession of the suit schedule lands and a suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable when any interference is there with the plaintiffs’ lawful possession or there is any threat of dispossession. 55. Moreover, there is ample evidence to show that the plaintiffs are having physical possession of the suit schedule lands and a suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable when any interference is there with the plaintiffs’ lawful possession or there is any threat of dispossession. 55. Even the implead petition filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the suit filed by the defendant No.7 was dismissed. Interestingly, they have not preferred any appeal or revision against the same. Thus, they cannot have any claim or title to the suit schedule property unless and until they file a separate suit for declaring their title and for recovery of the property. The defendants Nos.1 to 6 have not filed an iota of evidence to show that they are in physical possession of the lands in question, except relying on the observations made in the judgments of the High Court and other Courts. 56. Moreover, in this case, the plaintiffs have obtained necessary permission from the competent authority for making construction. The defendants Nos.1 to 6 challenged the said grant of permission before the High Court, in W.P.No.29777 of 2017 along with WPMP No.37066 of 2017 wherein initially status quo order was granted by this Court. Thereafter, one of the plaintiffs had filed a writ appeal challenging the order of status quo. The learned Division Bench of this Court has vacated the status quo order. Subsequently, no order has been passed by this Court either suspending the permission granted, or staying the construction in W.P.No.29777 of 2017. If the order of the trial Court is allowed to stand, it will amount to nullifying the order in Writ Appeal No.324 of 2018, dated 21.03.2018, passed by a learned Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court. 57. Even the defendant No.7 has filed a separate suit in O.S.No.223 of 2011 on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs, which clearly implies that the defendant No.7 is also not in possession of the suit schedule land, and the possession is with the plaintiffs. Unless and until, the defendant No.7 succeeds in the suit filed by him, he cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, or claim any right or title over the same. 58. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are having the necessary permissions from the GHMC. Unless and until, the defendant No.7 succeeds in the suit filed by him, he cannot interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, or claim any right or title over the same. 58. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are having the necessary permissions from the GHMC. When the defendants No.1 to 6 filed a writ petition before this Court against grant of said permission, initially status quo order was granted by a learned Single Judge. However, the same was set aside by the learned Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.324 of 2018, by order dated 21.03.2018. Admittedly, no S.L.P. has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 21.03.2018. Thus, the said order has become final. Hence, the permission for construction is a valid and subsisting. 59. The photos filed by the plaintiffs and the observations made by the learned trial Judge clearly shows that the physical possession is with the plaintiffs; they have also started the construction work and laid the necessary foundation. Having found that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land, the trial court, for reasons best known, has termed it as permissive and on the observations of the High Court. The trial court has simply picked up the isolated words and sentences from the judgment without reading the judgment holistically in a proper perspective. If injunction is not granted, it is the plaintiffs who will suffer irreparable loss as they have spent huge money in obtaining the necessary building permission from the concerned authorities, and also in procuring the manpower and material. The commercial interest of the plaintiffs far outweighs the interest of the defendants. As seen from the record, it is clear that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land in question, and they are having a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and they will be put to irreparable loss if injunction is not granted by the Court. 60. As seen from the record, it is clear that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land in question, and they are having a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and they will be put to irreparable loss if injunction is not granted by the Court. 60. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and I.A.No.740 of 2018 in O.S.No.569 of 2018 on the file of the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is ordered restraining the respondents, their respective men, relatives, friends, family members, henchmen, the persons claiming through them, or under the respondents, and all others from interfering with the construction/development work being carried on by the petitioners as per the permission granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vide permit No.53309/HO/SZ/Cir.6/2016, dated 08.08.2017 in File No.76737/03/05/2016/HO, over the suit schedule property of land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts., forming part of survey No.2 (peradu), situated at Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This order does not in any way can be construed as giving any finding on the merits or demerits of the case and the trial Court should deal with the pending cases on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this appeal. The observations and findings given in this order are for the purpose of disposal of this C.M.A. only. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.