JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants assailing the order dated 06.03.2020 in IA No.35 of 2020 in OS No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit No.8 of 2020 for perpetual injunction along with IA No.35 of 2020 for temporary injunction under Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from interfering and dispossessing the petitioners/ plaintiffs from items 1 to 5 of suit schedule properties. 3. The trial Court after considering the facts of the case, material available on record including Exs.P.1 to P.22 on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs and Exs.R.1 to R.7 on behalf of respondents/defendants allowed the application granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule items 1 to 5 properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit. 5. During the pendency of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, following IAs are allowed : (a) IA No.3 of 2020 filed by the defendants to receive revocation deed document No.25023 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019 and development agreement and other additional documents was partially allowed as per the orders dated 01.09.2020 and only certified copy of revocation deed dated 01.10.2019 is ordered to be received as additional evidence on behalf of respondents in IA No.35 of 2020 who are the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the same is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.R.8. (b) IA No.4 of 2020 filed by the defendants under Order-41, Rule-27 CPC to receive additional evidence was also allowed in part on 01.09.2020 and photocopy of affidavit in Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 is ordered to be received in evidence on behalf of respondents in IA No.35 of 2020, accordingly the same is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.R.9. (c) Similarly, the defendants have filed an application in IA No.5 of 2020 under Section 151 of CPC to receive Exs.P.6 to P.15 along with true translated copies into English, since other side has reported no objection, the said application was allowed on 20.08.2020 and the translated version of Exs.P.6 to P.15 are made part of the record. 6. Thus, as per the orders in IA No.3 of 2020 certified copy of rectification deed is received in evidence on behalf of defendants, who are the respondents in IA No.35 of 2020 and marked as Ex.R.8. Photocopy of affidavit in Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 is received as additional evidence, marked as Ex.R.9, also received translated copies of Exs.P.6 to P.15. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and for the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned counsels on both sides have also made written submissions. The detailed submissions made are more or less on pleaded lines, therefore, it may not be necessary to refer in detail to such submissions, however, they are received due consideration of this Court. 8. (a) The plaintiffs have filed this application in IA No.35 of 2020 under Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 of CPC for relief of temporary injunction alleging that they are the owners to an extent of Ac.31.00 guntas, out of Survey No.120/A of Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District and it is their joint family property, the same was divided among as per the partition deed dated 01.10.2019. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and plaintiff No.3 is their sister. As per the said partition, plaintiffs 1 & 2 got Ac.13.00 guntas each and plaintiff No.3 got Ac.5.00 guntas, out of Ac.31.00 guntas of land in Survey No.120/A, which are referred as item Nos.1, 3 and 5 of suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs’ father has surrendered the land to an extent of Ac.12.20 guntas, out of Survey No.120/B as surplus land to the Government and he was left only with Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Survey No.120/B in the joint family partition. The plaintiffs 1 & 2 have got Ac.2.20 guntas each towards their share in Survey No.120/B and the same is referred to as items 2 & 4 of schedule of property. (b) The land in Survey No.120 of Chinthagattu village admeasuring Ac.141.00 guntas, was sub-divided into three parts as 120/A, 120/B, and 120/C with an extent of Ac.47.00 guntas each. The plaintiffs 1 & 2 have got Ac.2.20 guntas each towards their share in Survey No.120/B and the same is referred to as items 2 & 4 of schedule of property. (b) The land in Survey No.120 of Chinthagattu village admeasuring Ac.141.00 guntas, was sub-divided into three parts as 120/A, 120/B, and 120/C with an extent of Ac.47.00 guntas each. The land in Survey No.120/A was allotted to Billa Tirupathi Reddy, 120/B was allotted to Billa Venkata Papi Reddy (grand great father of plaintiffs) and 120/C was allotted to Billa Gopal Reddy. Recently, the plaintiffs have come to know about the misrepresentation of the land by the defendants in getting the layout DP No.000017/LO/PLG/ KUDA/2019 by showing the land to an extent of Ac.29.16 guntas covered by Survey Nos.120/A, 120/B and 120/C as a compact block by suppressing the actual location or existence of the above lands including the surplus land surrendered to the Government. (c) Thereafter, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint before the authorities of Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (for short ‘KUDA’). A show cause notice was also issued. The plaintiffs have also approached the Joint Collector, Warangal Urban District and made a complaint against the illegal acts of defendants alleging that the defendants have no title or interest over the suit schedule property, more particularly items 1, 3 and 5 of suit schedule properties. But, they are making serious attempts to grab the same by dispossessing the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are having prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour, sought for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the original suit. 9. (a) The defendants have filed a detailed counter denying the plaintiffs’ case stating that the said partition deed is a fabricated document, it will not create any rights to the plaintiffs. The layout DP No.000017/LO/ PLG/KUDA/2019 by showing the land to an extent of Ac.29.16 guntas covered by Survey Nos.120/A, 120/B and 120/C is as per the documents, such as land conversion proceedings and the documents of the site owners, who gave the land for development and there is no irregularity in the layout permission obtained. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records has only demarcated the land, surrendered to the Government and not the total land in Survey No.120. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records has only demarcated the land, surrendered to the Government and not the total land in Survey No.120. Filing of Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 for directions to the KUDA authorities is nothing but a step in using the fabricated document by the plaintiffs. The boundaries shown in the earlier partition deed document No.4607 of 2017, dated 03.04.2017 (Ex.R.1) are entirely different from the boundaries shown in the latest partition deed document No.25113 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019 (Ex.P.1). Thus there is discrepancy in the description and identity of the plaint schedule properties in the Ex.P.1 and Ex.R.1 and only to suit their convenience, the plaintiffs have mentioned boundaries in Ex.P.1 by revoking the Ex.R.1 and suppressed material facts. For more clarity, the defendants have prepared charts as annexed to their counter showing the boundaries of suit schedule properties and that the boundaries as shown in the earlier partition (Ex.R.1) and the latest partition (Ex.P.1) are mentioned in Annexure-I.A and Annexure-I.B respectively. There is no document to show the identity of the suit schedule property with boundaries as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and Annexure 1-B and the same in dispute, plaintiffs are facing criminal case in Crime No.125 of 2015 and RDO proceedings. The land in Survey Nos.120/A, 120/B and 120/C was sold by its owners from 1995 of 2013 with different boundaries to various purchasers, through registered sale deed document Nos.339/1995, 350/1995, 361/1995, 5129/2006, 5130/2006, 10061/2012, 11467/2012, 4135/2013, 3708/2013, 5212/2013, 5421/2013, 6738/2013, 7608/2013, 7603/2013, 8158/2013, 5320/2013, 5421/2013, 6738/2013, 7607/2013, 7608/2013, 8158/2013, 4904/2014, 3408/2015, 3438/2015, 8/2016, 3759/2018. The defendants have taken development of Ac.59.00 guntas, out of which applied for lay out for Ac.29.16 guntas. (b) As per the version of plaintiffs who filed Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 questioning the layout approved by KUDA and WP No.26730 of 2016 claiming right to delete the land in Survey No.120/B/1, it is the case of plaintiffs that no bifurcation of Survey No.120 was taken place. In fact, the development work and levelling of area by the defendants is in progress since 2018. The defendants have entered into development agreement in respect of Ac.59.00 guntas either from the co-sharers of the plaintiffs or their successors-in-title being vendors as per the sale deeds indicated above. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In fact, the development work and levelling of area by the defendants is in progress since 2018. The defendants have entered into development agreement in respect of Ac.59.00 guntas either from the co-sharers of the plaintiffs or their successors-in-title being vendors as per the sale deeds indicated above. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have filed this suit by creating Ex.P.1 showing boundaries to suit their convenience without any basis to extract money from defendants, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. During the enquiry before the Court below, no oral evidence is adduced, but on behalf of plaintiffs Exs.P.1 to P.22 are marked, whereas on behalf of Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked. Before this Court as per the orders in IA Nos.3 and 4 of 2020, Exs.R.8 and R.9 are marked as additional evidence. 11. In the light of rival contentions and the material available on record, the point for consideration is whether the order impugned is sustainable and plaintiffs are entitled for continuation of temporary injunction granted by the Court below? 12. To substantiate their case, plaintiffs have relied upon Exs.P.1 to P.22. Ex.P.1 is the partition deed dated 01.10.2019 executed among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their mother, Smt. B. Jayaprada. Ex.P.2 is the pattadar passbook issued on to the name of Billa Venkata Papi Reddy, father of plaintiffs 1 to 3. Ex.P.3 is the pattadar passbook of plaintiff No.1. Ex.P.4 is the proceedings of office of the District Collector, Warangal (Urban) in Rc.No.C4/2044/2019, dated 29.10.2019, whereunder the Public Information Officer and Administration Officer of District Collector, Warangal (Urban) has furnished certain information to plaintiff No.2, whereas Ex.P.5 is the letter from Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Warangal (Urban), it is dated 19.07.2019 addressed to the District Collector, Warangal (Urban). As per this letter, on 16.07.2019, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records along with his team of officers went to the land in Survey No.120/B and with the help of village map and certain neighbouring survey numbers, the land in Survey No.120 was divided into three parts. Ex.P.5/1 and Ex.P.5/2 are the location sketches prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Exs.P.6 to P.19 are certified copies of pahanies for the years 1954-55, 1959-60, 1964-65, 1970-71, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. Ex.P.5/1 and Ex.P.5/2 are the location sketches prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Exs.P.6 to P.19 are certified copies of pahanies for the years 1954-55, 1959-60, 1964-65, 1970-71, 1977-78, 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2004-05, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. Ex.P.20 is the proceedings of Vice Chairman, KUDA, Warangal, dated 3.05.2019 for layout permission. Ex.P.21 is the Memo of Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal in Rc.No.L/1132/ 2016, date 13.04.2016, whereas Ex.P.22 is the spiral book of ceiling proceedings received under Right to Information Act. 13. On behalf of defendants, Exs.R.1 to R.7 are marked before the trial Court, whereas before this Court, Exs.R.8 and R.9 are also marked, as stated above. Ex.R.1 is the partition deed, dated 03.04.2017, it is the original partition deed among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and their mother. Ex.R.2 is the sale deed dated 23.10.2017, it is executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 by Billa Sarotham Reddy and two others in respect of land in Survey No.120/C/1 Ac.3.18 guntas. Ex.R.3 is another sale deed dated 28.03.2013 executed in favour of Billa Jayaprada, mother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Survey No.120/B/3. Exs.R.4 and R.5 are certified copies of Vakalatnama filed by Sri Satla Ramanadham, advocate before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal on behalf of B. Vinaya Chandra Reddy. Ex.R.6 is the certified copy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal by Billa Jayachandra Reddy and Ex.R.7 is the xerox copy of Writ Petition No.26730 of 2016, dated 06.11.2017. Ex.R.8 is the certified copy of revocation deed dated 01.09.2019 wherein the partition deed-Ex.R.1 dated 03.04.2017 was revoked. Ex.R.9 photo copy of affidavit of plaintiff No.2-Billa Suman Reddy filed Writ Petition No.637 of 2020. 14. On a careful examination of the above documents, it is found that initially the plaintiffs and their mother divided/partitioned their properties, through Ex.R.1 dated 03.04.2017, but it was revoked by revocation deed-Ex.R.8 on 01.10.2019 and Ex.P.1-fresh partition deed dated 01.10.2019 was executed among the plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the same day. As alleged by the defendants, there is discrepancy in the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.R.1 and Ex.P.1. Ex.R.9 is the photocopy of affidavit in W.P.No.637 of 2020. The plaintiffs have not filed any supporting documents of survey etc., for changing the boundaries from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1. As alleged by the defendants, there is discrepancy in the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.R.1 and Ex.P.1. Ex.R.9 is the photocopy of affidavit in W.P.No.637 of 2020. The plaintiffs have not filed any supporting documents of survey etc., for changing the boundaries from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1. As per Ex.R.6, one Billa Jayachandra Reddy who is one of the agnates of the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the plaintiffs herein and others disputing the title and possession of the plaintiffs including issuance of patttadar passbooks in their favour. Exs.R.7 and R.9 are the copies of WP No.26730 of 2016 and copy of affidavit of petitioner No.2 in WP No.637 of 2020 respectively. In Ex.R.7 affidavit of petitioner No.1 herein is filed. These writ petitions are filed for deleting the land admeasuring Ac.18.00 guntas in 120/B/1 from CC No.1235 of 1975 and to cancel the KUDA approved layout in favour of defendant herein. The averments of the affidavits filed in support of WP No.26730 of 2016 and WP No.637 of 2020 and Ex.R.6 coupled with Exs.P.4, P.5, P.5/1 and P.5/2 (letter of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, location sketch maps) would prima facie establish that there is dispute between plaintiffs and their co-sharers as to title/possession/boundaries of the land in their possession. Under these circumstances, the Ex.R.1 and Ex.P.1 partition deed and the discrepancy in the boundaries of suit schedule properties in the two documents need to be looked into. 15. For better appreciation of the discrepancy in the boundaries of the land items 1 to 5 of plaint schedule, the comparative chart filed with the counter as Annexure-I.A and Annexure-I.B is extracted as under : Annexure I-A Partition Deed No.4607/2017 ITEM NO.1 ITEM NO.2 ITEM NO.3 ITEM NO.4 Acres 15-23 Guntas in Survey No.120/A Allotted to B. Naveen Reddy Acres 10-22 Guntas in Survey No.120/A Allotted to B. Suman Reddy Acres 5-00 Guntas in Survey No.120/B Allotted to B. Suman Reddy Acres 5-00 Guntas in Survey No.120/A Allotted to K. Neena Reddy E Agrl. Lands in Survey No.119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.118 and 119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.119 W Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Lands in Survey No.119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.118 and 119 Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.119 W Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.121 and 138 part N Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/C Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B S Village boundary of Bheemaram Village boundary of Bheemaram Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/A Village boundary of Bheemaram Annexure I - B Suit Schedule Property/Partition Deed No.25113/2019 ITEM NO.1 ITEM NO.2 ITEM NO.3 ITEM NO.4 ITEM NO.5 Acres 13-00 Guntas in Survey No.120/A Acres 2-20 Guntas in Survey No.120/B Acres 13-00 Guntas in Survey No.120/A Acres 2-20 Guntas in Survey No.120/B Acres 5-00 Guntas in Survey No.120/A E Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/A belongs to K. Neena Reddy Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to B. Suman Reddy Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to B. Sunder Reddy sons Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to K. Neena Reddy Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/A belongs to B. Suman Reddy W Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/A belongs to R.C. Developers Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to B. Sunder Reddy sons Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/A belongs to K. Neena Reddy Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to B. Naveen Reddy Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B belongs to B. Naveen Reddy N Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.157 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.172 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.172 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.172 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.157 Part & 158 Part S Village boundary of Bheemaram Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B of Govt. Lands Village boundary of Bheemaram Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B of Govt. Lands Village boundary of Bheemaram 16. Dry Lands in Survey No.172 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.172 Part Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.157 Part & 158 Part S Village boundary of Bheemaram Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B of Govt. Lands Village boundary of Bheemaram Agrl. Dry Lands in Survey No.120/B of Govt. Lands Village boundary of Bheemaram 16. Be it stated that as per Ex.P.1 revised partition deed, the land in items 1, 3 and 2 is shown as a compact block with an extent of Ac.13.00 guntas, Ac.5.00 guntas and Ac.13.00 guntas respectively, out of Survey No.120/A with precise boundaries as shown in the schedule property and Annexure.1-B. But as per Ex.R.1, the original partition deed, it is not a compact block. The land of Ac.15.23 guntas on the name of plaintiff No.1 is shown as one block, similarly, the land admeasuring Ac.10.22 guntas in Survey No.120/A and Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey No.120/B (item Nos.2 & 3) on the name of plaintiff No.2 is shown as another block. Whereas, the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey No.120/A allotted to plaintiff No.3 is shown as another block. 17. Thus, as per the earlier partition under Ex.R.1, the land of plaintiffs 1 to 3 is not in a compact block. Ex.R.1 is dated 03.04.2017, whereas Ex.P.1 revised partition deed is dated 01.10.2019, the land in item Nos.1 to 5 is shown as compact block. Further, instead of four items as mentioned in Ex.R.1, they are shown as five items in Ex.P.1, out of Survey Nos.120/A and 120/B. There is no explanation from the plaintiffs as to what made them to change the location and boundaries of suit schedule property from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1. It is pertinent to note that during the interregnum period between E.R.1 and Ex.P.1, disputes arose between the plaintiffs and their agnates (co-sharers), complaints were lodged before the revenue officials/KUDA officials and survey was held (see Exs.P.5, P.5/1, P.5/2, P.20 and Ex.R.6). 18. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances of the case, a reasonable inference that could be drawn is that only based on the survey held on 16.07.2019 as per Ex.P.5 and the plans-Exs.P.5/1 and P.5/2 to suit their convenience, unilaterally plaintiffs have changed the boundaries/location of suit schedule property showing it as one block. 18. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances of the case, a reasonable inference that could be drawn is that only based on the survey held on 16.07.2019 as per Ex.P.5 and the plans-Exs.P.5/1 and P.5/2 to suit their convenience, unilaterally plaintiffs have changed the boundaries/location of suit schedule property showing it as one block. From the pleadings on record, either the agnates of the plaintiffs or their successors-in-title in respect of land in Survey No.120 gave Ac.59.00 guntas of land gave it to the defendants for development and the defendants started developing Ac.29.16 guntas out of it. At that stage, the plaintiffs have complained to KUDA stating that the approved plan is either overlapping surplus land surrendered by their father or over their land. Accordingly, at this stage the boundaries/location of suit land as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and in the schedule of property cannot be relied upon. 19. There may not be any dispute as to the ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of Ac.31.00 guntas in Survey No.120/A and Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Survey No.120/B, but the dispute is with regard to the location and boundaries as shown in Ex.P.1 and schedule of property. Conspicuously, the boundaries and location of suit schedule property are changed from Ex.R.1 dated 03.04.2017 to Ex.P.1 dated 01.10.2019 without any basis or changed circumstances or authenticity except the survey held under Ex.P.5 on 16.07.2019. 20. Though the appellants have not filed Development Agreements, undisputed facts are that the land that was given to the defendants for development by the owners is overlapping with the ceiling land in Survey No.120/B or with the land that is claimed by the plaintiffs under Ex.P.1. The Ex.R.1, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 along with location maps under Ex.P.5/1, Ex.P.5/2 and the Annexure-I and II of the counter filed prima facie indicates that the plaintiffs to suit their convenience have changed the boundaries in Ex.P.1 partition deed, from the partition deed Ex.R.1. The plaintiffs have not filed any other supporting document to show that they are in exclusive possession of plaint schedule properties with the precise boundaries as mentioned therein. The Exs.P.2 and P.3 pattadar passbooks, Exs.P.6 to P.19 pahanies are not helpful to the plaintiffs to show that they are in exclusive possession of the land with precise boundaries/location as shown in Ex.R.1 and schedule of property. The Exs.P.2 and P.3 pattadar passbooks, Exs.P.6 to P.19 pahanies are not helpful to the plaintiffs to show that they are in exclusive possession of the land with precise boundaries/location as shown in Ex.R.1 and schedule of property. The plaintiffs also failed to file third party affidavit of neighbours nor examined any witness during enquiry before the trial Court to clinch the issue of boundary/location dispute. In such facts and circumstances, in view of change of location and boundaries of suit land from Ex.R.1 and Ex.P.1, the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land with precise boundaries as in Ex.P.1 and schedule of property as one compact block is highly doubtful. 21. This application in IA No.35 of 2020 in OS No.8 of 2020 is filed under Order-39, Rule-1 (C) of CPC for temporary injunction. Order-39 of CPC provides that in any suit if it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise that the defendant threatens the plaintiff with respect to the property in the suit, the Court may by order grant temporary injunction, restraining the defendant until the disposal of the suit, as the Court thinks fit. The fundamental principle for grant of temporary injunction is that no injunction would be granted unless a prima facie case is made out from the plaint, the documents filed along with it and the affidavit filed by the party. The second principle is that unless the injunction prayed for is not granted the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and injury before the suit is finally decided. 22. The object of granting temporary injunction is to preserve the matter in status quo till the case is finally decided. The law is also well-settled that the grant of interim injunction is a discretionary remedy and in exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing such relief, the Court will look into the following : (i) whether the person seeking a temporary injunction has made out a prima facie case. This is sine qua non; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., whether it would cause much inconvenience to him if injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which either side would be put if injunction is granted. (iii) Whether such person seeking a temporary injunction would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, it is not necessary that all the three conditions must be satisfied. (iii) Whether such person seeking a temporary injunction would suffer irreparable loss and injury. However, it is not necessary that all the three conditions must be satisfied. That the first condition is sine qua non. At least two conditions must be satisfied by the plaintiff conjunctively and mere proof of one of three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction. 23. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has relied on the following decisions: (a) In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. And others v. Coca Cola Co. And others, (1995) 5 SCC 545 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with requirement for grant of temporary injunction under Order-39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC held at para-47 as under : “47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad-interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings. (b) In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 at para-21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “21. (b) In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 at para-21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under: (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) Asa suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alaammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202 . Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.” (c) This Court in Yerra Venkatesh v. Nathi Mallesh and others, 2011 (4) U.L.J. 284 (HC) held at paras 9 & 10 as under : “Trite to state, the plaintiff has to first satisfy the Court that he has a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss or injury if injunction is not granted. To make out his prima facie case, the plaintiff must first and foremost establish his possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence and he cannot rely upon the weakness, if any, in the case of the defendant(s), for this purpose [D. APPARAO vs. D. RAMA MOHANARAO, ( 1995 (2) ALT 678 ]. It is equally well settled that when the plaintiff fails to prove a prima facie case to go for trial, the question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to him would not be material at all, that is to say, if the party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted [KASHI MATH SAMSTHAN vs. SRIMAD SUDHINDRA THIRTHA SWAMY, AIR 2010 SC 296 ]. (d) In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through LRs, (2012) 5 SCC 370 at paras 83 to 86, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the essentials for grant or refusal of an injunction as under : “Grant or refusal of an injunction 83. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and Judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. 84. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the Judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness. The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction, it should be granted for a specified period, such as, for two weeks. In those cases, the plaintiff will have no inherent interest in delaying disposal of injunction application after obtaining an ex-parte ad interim injunction. 85. The Court, in order to avoid abuse of the process of law may also record in the injunction order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff undertakes to pay restitution, actual or realistic costs. While passing the order, the Court must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and pass proper order for mesne profits. The Court must make serious endeavour to ensure that even-handed justice is given to both the parties. 86. Ordinarily, three main principles govern the grant or refusal of injunction. (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and (c) irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis the Court must be governed by the prima facie case. (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and (c) irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis the Court must be governed by the prima facie case. In grant and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role.” (e) In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, SCC Online SC 802, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the effect of mutation in the revenue records. 24. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the trial Court on careful appreciation of the facts and material available rightly granted temporary injunction. The plaintiffs have filed Exs.P.1 to P.22 documents and able to demonstrate all the essentials such as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour, there are no infirmities in the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of the Court. 25. The grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is most important. Ordinarily three main principles will govern the grant or refusal of injunction; prima facie case, which is sine qua non, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The plaintiffs have to satisfy that they have prima facie case with the balance of convenience in their favour, otherwise they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. To make out a prima facie case, first and foremost, the plaintiffs have to establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence and they cannot rely on the weaknesses or otherwise of defendants case. 26. Further, the object of granting a temporary injunction is only to preserve the matter in dispute is status quo until the case is finally decided. To maintain status quo means not to make any physical changes in the property such as demolition, alterations, levelling etc. Though at the time of granting temporary injunction, the Court is not called upon to decide finally the rights of the parties, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and decided then only the Court may be justified in issuing temporary injunction to maintain status quo during pendency of the Original Suit. 27. Though at the time of granting temporary injunction, the Court is not called upon to decide finally the rights of the parties, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and decided then only the Court may be justified in issuing temporary injunction to maintain status quo during pendency of the Original Suit. 27. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as discussed above, as per Ex.R.1, the boundaries of suit schedule properties are quite distinct when compared to the boundaries as mentioned in the schedule of property and in Ex.P.1. As per Ex.P.1 and schedule of property, all the suit schedule properties are shown as one compact block, whereas in Ex.R.1, they are shown with different boundaries as distinct and separate parts. No material is placed before the Court to indicate that after Ex.R.1 there was a survey with notice to all the effected parties and in the survey, the boundaries are fixed and that based on such survey only, there was change of boundaries from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1. No doubt, Exs.P.2 and P.3 pattadar passbooks and the pahanies-Exs.P.6 to Ex.P.19 shows the extent and possession of the plaintiffs or their father, but the dispute in the case on hand is location and boundaries of suit land, hence these documents are not helpful to the plaintiffs to prima facie establish the same. 28. As per the order impugned, the trial Court seems to have placed heavy reliance on Ex.P.1 and held that Ex.P.1 supported by entries in the revenue records shows the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land within the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.P.1 and in the schedule of property as on the date of filing of the suit. But, as a matter of fact, there is no basis for changing the boundaries in Ex.P.1 from Ex.R1. But, as a matter of fact, there is no basis for changing the boundaries in Ex.P.1 from Ex.R1. Therefore, in view of disputes between the plaintiffs and their agnates, as discussed above, the sudden change of location and boundaries from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1 creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the exclusive possession of plaintiffs over suit land within the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.P.1 Therefore, in the absence of clear proof that the plaintiffs were in possession of suit schedule property items 1 to 5 as on the date of filing of the suit, it is manifest that the plaintiffs failed to cross the first hurdle of proving their prima facie case, which is sine qua non. 29. Thus when the facts of the present case are tested on the touch stone of the principles laid by Apex Court in the above decisions, the answer is in the negative, plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction and the Court below erred in arriving at a conclusion that the plaintiffs were found in exclusive possession of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, more so in view of boundary disputes, among the agnates of plaintiffs, survey report under Ex.P.5 location maps and the discrepancy in the original partition deed-Ex.R.1 and the latest partition deed-Ex.P.1 with reference to the boundaries and location of plaint schedule properties. In that way, though the plaintiffs are owners and possessors to an extent of Ac.31.00 guntas in Survey No.120/A and Ac.5.00 guntas in Survey No.120/B, their possession with precise boundaries or the location as shown in the schedule of property and in Ex.P.1 is highly doubtful, since there is no basis or proof for change of boundaries and location of suit lands from Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.1. 30. Therefore, while relying on the principles laid in the above decisions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants and it cannot sustain. Be it stated that it is not possible to decide the disputed question of exclusive possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property with precise boundaries and location as shown in Ex.P.1 based on the documents and material filed by both the parties. Be it stated that it is not possible to decide the disputed question of exclusive possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property with precise boundaries and location as shown in Ex.P.1 based on the documents and material filed by both the parties. Hence, both the parties to the suit are hereby directed to maintain “Status Quo” and not to make any physical changes in the suit schedule property and not to create any third party interest leading to multiple litigations during pendency of the suit. 31. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2020 in IA No.35 of 2020 in OS No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal is hereby set aside. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in view of existing boundary and location disputes, among the parties who are in possession of the land in Survey Nos.120/A and 120/B, both the parties to the suit are hereby directed to maintain status quo not to make any physical changes in the suit schedule property such as levelling, demolition of existing structures, alteration etc., and not to create any third party rights or interest in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the Original Suit. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal is hereby directed to make every endeavour for disposal of original suit at the earliest possible and shall dispose of the same within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the original suit, as directed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 32. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.