JUDGMENT : Both the Civil ]Miscellaneous Appeals were filed by the appellants/defendants No.1,2 and 5 aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.445 of 2016 in O.S No.41 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur (for short “the Court below”). 2. Since the issue involved in the two appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The impugned application in I.A No.445 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein before the Court below under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing into the plaint schedule land, and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and also restrain the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule property. After careful examination of entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has allowed the application and restrained the respondents and their men by way of temporary injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. The trial Court also held that the petitioners shall not raise any constructions on it and the respondents are further restrained from alienating the schedule property by executing any documents in favour of third parties till the disposal of the suit. Challenging the same, the appellants/defendnats1, 2 and 5 have preferred the present appeals. 5. Heard Smt. N. Revathi and Sri Venakta Durga Rao, learned counsels appearing for the appellants and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree and Order of the court below is illegal, irregular, contrary to weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She further submits that the Court below erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against the appellant herein. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decree and Order of the court below is illegal, irregular, contrary to weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. She further submits that the Court below erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs against the appellant herein. She further submits that the court below went wrong in holding that in view of the boundary recital in Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 sale deed showing Ahmed Sait, who is 2nd plaintiff, the case of the appellant established that northern boundary property fell to his share and that the court below ought to have observed that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the northern boundary owner for all properties under Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 is 2nd plaintiff only and it is the case of the plaintiffs that they got Plaint Schedule Property to their share in the family partition deed said family partition has not been proved by the plaintiffs by adducing any cogent evidence. She further submits that the court below ought to have considered that the appellant is the bonafide purchaser of the property for consideration and without any notice of defect in title of their vendors. Thus their sale deeds are protected by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the plaintiffs have not filed single document to prove their possession for het schedule property. Thus they are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. She further contended that the Court below ought to have considered that the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case as on today since their plea of earlier partition is to be established by cogent evidence during the trial of the suit. In view of the physical possession of the appellant the balance of convenience is in his favour only. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to establish the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and that the Court below ought to have dismissed the petition for grant of temporary injunction and directed the plaintiffs to commence the trial of suit in order to establish their case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denying all the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents denying all the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the court below has rightly allowed the applications and that the present appeals are not maintainable and they are liable to be dismissed. 8. As seen from the impugned judgment, it is observed that originally late Adam Sait was the father of the plaintiffs/respondents NO.1 and 2. He was absolute owner of total extent of land in S.No.29/4 of Veera Venkatapuram village of Donakond Mandal. The plaintiffs are the sons of Adam Sait through his 2nd wife. Munshi Sait Mohammad Sait father of 2nd and 3rd respondents and Ismail Sait are also sons of Adam Sait through his 1st wife. The said Adam Sait died in the year 1972. In the year 2004, the Mushi Sali Mohammad Sait and Ismail Sait partitioned their properties and during their partition the southern half land in S.No.29/4 i.e., Ac 1.22 cents fell to the share of Munshi Sali Mohammad Sait the father of respondents No.2 and 3 herein and his brother Ismail Sait. The northern half Ac 1.22 cents i.e., plaint schedule property fell to the share of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs and ever since they are in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule land with absolute rights. 9. It is further observed that there is tremendous hike value of sites since the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced to establish an Industrial Corporation at Donakaonda. The respondents No.1 and 2 therein and their father indulged in executing vicious documents in favour of other defendants. In turn they are also trying to execute more documents to grab the plaint schedule property. It is further observed from the impugned order that, the respondents No.4 to 7 therein in order to show that they have purchased the lands under various extents and different documents, filed Ex.R1 the copies of registered sale deed dated 20.4.2016 stands in the name of Daram Rama Mohana Reddy the 5th respondent, who is appellant herein for an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents. Ex.R2 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 24.2.2016 stands in the name of 6th respondent therein for an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents; Ex.R3 is the registered sale deed dated 26.4.2016 stands in the name of 5th respondent to an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents. Ex.R2 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 24.2.2016 stands in the name of 6th respondent therein for an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents; Ex.R3 is the registered sale deed dated 26.4.2016 stands in the name of 5th respondent to an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents. Ex.R4 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 26.4.2016 sands in the name of Daram Nagarathna Kumari, the 7th respondent therein for an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents. Ex.R5 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 25.4.2016 stands in the name of 5th respondent for an extent of Ac 0.09 ½ cents. 10. It is the contention of the respondents 4 to 7 therein that they are bonafide purchasers, science the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. As seen from Ex.R1 to Ex.R6, it is clear that after death of Abdul Sait the father of respondents No.1 and 2 executed the registered documents, there was a partition among Adam Sait the father of respondents No.1 and 2 and the 2nd petitioner therein with regard to property in S.No.29/4. As the northern boundary in all the exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 is shown as the property of 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent herein it is probalizing that North side property in S No.29/4 fallen to the share of plaintiffs. Thereby the plaintiffs established prima facie case in their favour. 11. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, after demise of Adam Sait in the year 1972 the plaintiffs and one Munshi Sali Mohammad Sait and his brothel Ismail Sait partitioned the properties in the year 2004 and during that partition the southern half of Sy.No.29/4 comprising Ac 1.22 cents fell to the share of Munshi Sali Mohammed Sait Ac.1.22 cents i.e., the plaint schedule fell to the share of the plaintiffs. As per Schedule, it clearly established the above facts. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, the Court below did not consider the fact that in a suit for injunction particularly dealing with the temporary injunction petition, the prime factor to be established is the possession irrespective of the title. As per Schedule, it clearly established the above facts. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, the Court below did not consider the fact that in a suit for injunction particularly dealing with the temporary injunction petition, the prime factor to be established is the possession irrespective of the title. Further, the Court below have also failed to see that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as on today since their plea of earlier partition is to be established by cogent evidence during the trial of the suit. In view of physical possession of appellants the balance of convenience is in their favour. Thus the plaintiffs have failed to establish the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present appeals by setting aside the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.445 of 2016 in O.S No.41 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur, is hereby set aside. Further, since the suit pertains to the year 2016, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.