JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the order, dated 19.09.2022, in I.A.No.752 of 2016 in O.S.No.281 of 2016, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. This Court has heard Sri K.H.V. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for the respondent and also as instructed by the office of Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the other respondents. 3. The suit in O.S.No.281 of 2016 is filed for a partition of the A-schedule property and also for a declaration of title of the plaintiffs with regard to the B-schedule property A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession over the B-schedule property is claimed. I.A.No.752 of 2016 is filed for a temporary injunction with regard to B-schedule property. This was dismissed. Questioning the same the present C.M.A. is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued the matter at length. He points out that when an earlier order was erroneously passed the plaintiffs had approached the High Court, which remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is pointed out that even after the remand, the trial Court Judge did not consider the matter in its proper perspective and dismissed the application. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that important /serious issues that were raised, were not even discussed like the decree, by which the defendants claim to have acquired the property to B-schedule property, is not binding on the plaintiffs. The issue raised has been postponed by the trial Court Judge by stating that the same will be decided during the course of the trial. It is pointed out that despite the order of this Court in C.M.A.No.67 of 2020 the exhibits were not properly or correctly discussed, in particular stress is laid on Exs.P1 to P14 which show, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the possession of the appellants. It is also argued that the documents filed by the respondents were obtained ante litem motem/during the pendency of the litigation and that therefore, as per the settled law on the subject they cannot be treated as valid documents since they were obtained ante litem motem. It is also argued that the documents filed by the respondents were obtained ante litem motem/during the pendency of the litigation and that therefore, as per the settled law on the subject they cannot be treated as valid documents since they were obtained ante litem motem. Learned counsel also relies upon the case law, which is annexed to this C.M.A. to argue that the learned trial Judge has committed a gross error in not granting the injunction as prayed for. 5. In reply to this Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel argues the matter for respondents 1 and 2 and also on behalf of Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, who appears for the 3rd respondent. He submits that rights of the parties are not yet crystallized, and that the suit itself is filed for a partition and for a declaration that the decree obtained by the defendants is not binding. He points out that the defendants are in possession of the B-schedule property by virtue of a Court order and delivery in an E.P. He, therefore, asserts vehemently that the issue of title of the plaintiffs and their possession as claimed are not prima facie proved. He points out that the delivery receipt and other documents, under which the defendants claim possession, are filed by the appellants themselves. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court did not commit any error. COURT: 6. The suit, as noticed earlier, is filed for partition of the A-schedule property and for declaration of title of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 for the B-schedule property on the ground that the decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, viz., O.S.No.232 of 2014 is not binding on them and for a consequential relief of injunction. The I.A. is filed for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the B-schedule property. Counters were filed and the matter was argued at length. Plaintiffs marked Exs.P1 to P26 and defendants marked Exs.R1 to R7. 7. A reading of the plaint clearly reveals that the defendants are aware of the filing of the case i.e., O.S.No.232 of 2014 and the sale deed executed pursuant to the orders of the Court but they questioned the binding nature of the said sale deed. They are seeking reliefs which are mentioned earlier. 7. A reading of the plaint clearly reveals that the defendants are aware of the filing of the case i.e., O.S.No.232 of 2014 and the sale deed executed pursuant to the orders of the Court but they questioned the binding nature of the said sale deed. They are seeking reliefs which are mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is clear that as on date the plaintiffs’ rights over the B-schedule property are still to be established. 8. The other issue is about the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint B-schedule property. Respondents before the trial court state that an agreement of sale is executed in their favour for specific performance of contract of sale, executed by the defendants 1 and 2. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the plaint. In a suit for specific performance a decree was passed (Ex.P5). After execution was commenced, Ex.P10 is the delivery receipt issued by the Court Bailiff delivering the B-schedule property to respondents 1 and 2. Ex.P11 is the sale deed in their favour. Ex.P10/P11 both are after the decree of specific performance. 9. As per the settled law on the subject what is necessary to be proved is the possession on the date of the suit and the threat or an invasion of the right of the plaintiff for grant of injunction. The plaintiffs are claiming that to decide the possession of the property the adangals, which are marked as Exs.P12, 13 and 14, must be given due importance. The plaintiffs claim is that B-schedule property was given as Pasupukumkuma in 1966 at the time of marriage of the 1st plaintiff. The available record does not show any proof of possession between 1966-2016 for the B-schedule property. The issue, therefore, is whether the trial Court was right in not placing reliance on Ex.P12 to P14 (adangals) vis-a-vis Exs. P5, 7, 9, 10 and 11. These documents are the certified copies of the decree in the suit O.S.No.233 of 2014, the Execution Petition filed and the delivery warrant showing the physical delivery of the property to the 3rd respondent herein. When it is a question of appreciation of evidence, in the opinion of this Court, greater sanctity, at least for the sake of disposal of the I.A., while forming a prima facie opinion, should be given to the documents emanating from a Court proceedings. When it is a question of appreciation of evidence, in the opinion of this Court, greater sanctity, at least for the sake of disposal of the I.A., while forming a prima facie opinion, should be given to the documents emanating from a Court proceedings. Whether the decree is binding on the plaintiffs or not is a matter for decision in the suit. For a prima facie evaluation of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit an error in discussing the nature of the plaintiffs’ possession in para 20. When the Court weighed Ex.P12 to 14 against the delivery receipt and the decree passed by the Court, it rightly concluded that the issue, whether the said decree is binding on them or not, can be decided later. In para 21 the Court has also traced the case set up by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that he had entered into an agreement of sale, discharged the mortgage loan outstanding of the property, which is through a registered mortgage deed, filed a suit, secured a decree and then obtained delivery of the property as mentioned earlier. 10. In the opinion of this Court for recording prima facie case, the balance of convenience and other ingredients the trial Court did not commit any error in a proceeding in the manner that it did. It placed greater reliance on the sequence of events as described by the respondents, which include discharge of a registered mortgage, filing of a suit, the decree being obtained and delivery through the Court. 11. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any error warranting interference. 12. With the above observation, the C.M.A. is dismissed as there are no merits. It is reiterated that the opinions expressed in the course of the disposal of this CMA are for the purpose of disposal of the CMA alone and that they will not come in the way of the trial Court appreciating the matter or the evidence and pleadings on their own merits during the trial. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in this C.M.A. is also dismissed.