ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order of the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.3 of 2022 dated 01.11.2022. The first appellate Court reversed the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 dated 25.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 2. The revision petitioner/plaintiff mainly contended that the first appellate Court failed to construe the letter dated 19.11.1998 filed under Ex.P1 and attested copy of format-A dated 24.04.2001 filed under Ex.P8 in proper perspective and it was not considered that the petitioner is in continuous physical possession of the suit property right from their allotment. The revision petitioner further contended that as per the Orders in W.P.No.10151 of 2001, respondents/defendants have not refunded any amount and not filed any document to substantiate the same. He contended that the trial Court failed to consider the prima-facie title and possession and dismissed the injunction application which was made absolute by the trial Court. It is a settled principle that ‘possession follows title’, but it was not considered. Respondents/defendants already executed a registered sale deed in respect of part of the land in pursuance of the first auction conducted under Ex.P1 dated 19.11.1998. It was also pointed out that though CMA was heard on 11.07.2022, it was posted for orders on 15.07.2022. After 18 adjournments Order was passed on 04.11.2022. The first appellate Court exceeded its powers and came to the conclusion that the amended survey numbers are not covered under Exs.P1 and P7 and vacated the injunction. The trial court granted status quo in the year 2020 and made it absolute on 25.03.2022, but the first appellate Court instead of protecting the rights of the petitioner, allowed the CMA without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the said Order. 3. Perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.5 of 2020 is filed by one Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy against the Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL) represented by its authorized signatory and the Deputy Manager of Nizam Sugars Limited to declare him as absolute owner of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.324 & 704 measuring an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts out of Acs.40 – 00 gts situated at Narsapur Farm, Achanpally Shivar of Bodhan Mandal and for injunction. As per the Order dated 10.12.2020 in I.A.No.123 of 2020, the said survey numbers are amended as Sy.Nos.689, 691, 692, 693 and 694 part instead of Sy.Nos.324 & 704. 4. Parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience. 5. Plaintiff stated that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property to an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts out of Acs.40 – 00 gts in the above survey numbers. He stated that Nizam Sugars Limited was having 140 acres of land and they offered to sell two properties i.e., i) Acs.6 – 12 gts in Sy.No.324 and ii) Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.No.321 situated at Satapur Village, Rengel Mandal and also issued sale confirmation letter dated 19.11.1998. They delivered possession of both the extents, but executed registered sale deed only for Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.No.321 on 26.09.2001. Even in the document, it was specifically mentioned that they delivered the possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed W.P.No.10151 of 2001 before the Hon’ble High Court, and by Order dated 27.02.2008 the Hon’ble High Court directed the defendants to allot un-disputed land or to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff. In pursuance of the said Order, defendants asked the plaintiff to participate in auction for another land and stated that they will give sale letter to both extents. As the plaintiff was sick, his brother Laxminarayana Reddy participated in the auction and stood as highest bidder to purchase the land to an extent of Ac.0 – 21 gts and Acs.9 – 05 gts in Sy.Nos.683 and 704 respectively of Narsapur Farm, Achanpalle shivar. They delivered the possession immediately and assured to issue the sale letter later. From then onwards he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 6. The plaintiff executed MOU dated 31.01.2020 in favour of his brother to participate in the auction on his behest. He also filed acknowledgement of receipt of tender and EMD for sale of farm lands located around Shakkar Nagar unit along with Annexure-II dated 24.04.2001. Defendants instead of issuing sale letter in their favour, sold the property in public auction which was already allotted to Sugar Factory Workers (The Sugar Factory Mazdoor Sabha). He also filed acknowledgement of receipt of tender and EMD for sale of farm lands located around Shakkar Nagar unit along with Annexure-II dated 24.04.2001. Defendants instead of issuing sale letter in their favour, sold the property in public auction which was already allotted to Sugar Factory Workers (The Sugar Factory Mazdoor Sabha). After completion of auction without giving information to the plaintiff, sugar factory workers approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.No.8059 of 2001 and by Order dated 03.12.2007, the Hon’ble High Court directed the defendants to consider their request, as such defendants executed number of sale deeds in favour of Sugar Factory Workers, but the possession was not delivered and their names were not mutated in the revenue records. 7. Plaintiff further stated that Nizam Sugars Limited is having total extent of 140 acres in sy.No.689 & 705 and they allotted 100 acres to the Sugar Factory Workers and executed sale deeds. Out of remaining 40 acres, nearly 10 acres of land fell in roads and passages and the suit schedule property of Acs.15 – 17 gts is in Sy.Nos.324 & 704. He purchased Acs.9 – 05 gts in Sy.No.704 under auction dated 24.04.2001 and towards alternative land for Acs.6 – 12 gts in Sy.No.324 purchased under auction dated 19.11.1998. The remaining extent is also is in his possession and enjoyment. The defendants collected the sale consideration amount, but not issued sale letter in favour of him in spite of several requests, as such he gave representations in Praja Vaani on 21.05.2018 and 11.02.2019. Plaintiff used to raise sugar cane in the suit schedule property by investing huge amount, but from 1999 due to lack of water in Bodhan, it was kept vacant. On 28.05.2020 at about 11:00 a.m, defendants tried to interfere with his peaceful possession, as such he filed suit for declaration and for injunction. 8. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 & 2, they denied all the material allegations and further stated that they received Rs.2,44,166.61 ps out of total sale bid amount of Rs.3,14,525/- and the plaintiff is due to pay a sum of Rs.70,363.39 ps. 8. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 & 2, they denied all the material allegations and further stated that they received Rs.2,44,166.61 ps out of total sale bid amount of Rs.3,14,525/- and the plaintiff is due to pay a sum of Rs.70,363.39 ps. They further stated that as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.10151 of 2001, they refunded the sale price bid amount to the plaintiff by stating that there is no alternative land to be allotted and they executed registered sale deed bearing document No.5707 of 2001 dated 21.11.2001 in respect of Sy.No.321 to an extent of Acs.7 – 15 gts and after conducting survey and demarcation, in the presence of plaintiff, an extent of Acs.6 – 01 gts is finalized and the balance is left for roads and vagu and another part of the land is in occupation of SC Corporation. 9. They further stated that total extent of 140 acres is already distributed among the Nizam Sugars Limited employees as per G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 29.12.2008 and Pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries and registration was also made to the individuals. They further contended that survey numbers were not properly furnished by the plaintiff. Moreover, in the notarized affidavit dated 15.11.2001, his name is shown as E. Lakshma Reddy instead of Y.K.Pedda Lakshma Reddy, but filed suit in the name of E.Lakshma Reddy again. Whether he is the same person who participated in the auction is to be ensured. Even in his representation dated 11.02.2019, he asked for alternative allotment of Sy.No.702 and it has not disclosed the suit schedule property survey numbers. As per the representation dated 11.02.2019 or application given to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 21.05.2018, he asked for alternative land in Sy.No.702 or any other nearby land and it shows he did not know which land he is about to get and thus the question of peaceful possession does not arise. They further raised the issue of limitation and other factors and requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 10. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 requesting the Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment till the disposal of the main suit. 10. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 requesting the Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment till the disposal of the main suit. The facts in the petition and counter filed in the I.A are similar to that of the facts mentioned in the main suit. The trial Court considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides granted injunction during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by the said Order, defendants in the suit filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.03 of 2022, but the first appellate Court allowed the same by setting aside the Order of the trial Court. 11. The point for consideration before this Court is whether the trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction as sought for by the plaintiff in the suit and whether the Order of the first appellate Court is on proper appreciation of the facts or not. 12. Admittedly, Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL) was having 140 acres of land and they stated that they executed a registered sale deed in favour of their factory workers for the entire extent of 140 acres as per the G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 29.12.2008 and pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries and registration was also completed. Whereas, plaintiff stated that out of 140 acres, they executed sale deeds only for 100 acres and out of remaining 40 acres, 10 acres left for roads and vagu and the suit schedule property falls within the balance extent of 30 acres. He mainly contended that he participated in the auction conducted by Nizam Sugars Limited and purchased Acs.6 – 12 gts and Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.Nos.324 & 321 respectively and they also issued sale confirmation letter on 19.11.1998. They also executed registered sale deed dated 29.09.2001 in his favour regarding the extent of Acs.7 – 15 gts in Sy.No.321, but did not execute registered sale deed for the other extent, as such he filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court also directed the Nizam Sugars Limited to allot undisputed land to him or to refund the amount. Accordingly, another auction was conducted by the Nizam Sugars Limited, as he could not appear before the auction proceedings, he authorized his brother to participate in the auction and his brother became the highest bidder to purchase land to an extent Ac.0 – 21 gts and Acs.9 – 05 gts in Sy.No.683 and 704 respectively, but the sale letters were not issued in their favour. He further stated that he paid the entire sale consideration. Even though, Nizam Sugars Limited admitted the fact regarding the payment of sale consideration, stated that plaintiff is still due of Rs.70,363/-. This clearly shows that plaintiff participated in the auction and stood as highest bidder and also paid the sale consideration to some extent. 13. Defendants stated that they executed sale deeds in favour of their workers as per G.O.Ms.No.926 dated 29.12.2008, but the auction proceedings were conducted much prior to that i.e., on 19.11.1998 and again immediately after the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 27.02.2008. Moreover, Nizam Sugars Limited executed one sale deed in favour of plaintiff on 21.11.2001, but could not execute another sale deed for an extent of Acs.6 – 12 gts, as such when he participated in another auction, he became the highest bidder for Ac.0 – 21 gts and Acs.9 – 05 gts. Plaintiff requested the defendants for issuance of the sale letters and also gave representations before Praja Vaani. When there was no response from the defendants, filed suit for declaration and for injunction. The defendants in the written statement stated that they executed registered sale deed to an extent of Acs.7 – 15 gts in respect of land in Sy.No.321 vide document No.5707 of 2001 dated 21.11.2001, but after conducting survey and demarcation an extent of Acs.6 – 01 gts is finalized and another part of the land is in occupation of the SC Corporation. They also stated that as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar No.A5/6880/73 dated 21.07.1997, SC Corporation is in possession of the said lands. When they know pretty well that the said land is in occupation of the SC Corporation, why they put up the said land in public auction for sale is not explained. They also stated that as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar No.A5/6880/73 dated 21.07.1997, SC Corporation is in possession of the said lands. When they know pretty well that the said land is in occupation of the SC Corporation, why they put up the said land in public auction for sale is not explained. They also stated before putting auction of the said lands, defendants explained to the plaintiff that Sy.No.321 is at the end of Renjal farm and is under encroachment and further Sy.No.324 is Khariz Khatha land and is under possession of the defendants for more than 40 years also explained that title is not clear, even then plaintiff agreed for the said terms before participating in the auction and also agreed that he will not insist for registration of Khariz Khata lands and deposited 10% of the amount on 21.11.1998 and another sum of Rs.60,000/- was deposited on 29.12.1998, but he has not deposited balance of 50% of sale consideration, but they recovered the same from his sugar cane bills. How can the Nizam Sugars Limited put any auction for the lands when the title is not clear and they cannot register the same in favour of the auction purchasers. 14. The plaintiff stated that the bid amount is not refunded, whereas the defendants stated that they have already refunded the amount, but not filed any document to substantiate their version. Plaintiff also stated that though they executed registered sale deeds in favour of factory workers they have not handed over the possession and also not mutated their names in the revenue records and it clearly shows that there are several anomalies on the part of the Nizam Sugars Limited. The trial Court considering the evidence on record observed that the auction proceedings were not disputed by the Nizam Sugars Limited and also observed that there is no alternative property available and how they sold the lands to an extent of Acs.0 – 21 gts and Acs.9 – 05 gts in Sy.No.683 and 704 in auction proceedings under Ex.P8 is not explained. Plaintiff from the beginning stated that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and filed I.A.No.53 of 2021 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. When the said I.A is allowed, defendants preferred C.R.P.No.629 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on 14.12.2021. Plaintiff from the beginning stated that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and filed I.A.No.53 of 2021 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. When the said I.A is allowed, defendants preferred C.R.P.No.629 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on 14.12.2021. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report on 15.03.2022, in which he stated that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts. Admittedly, suit itself is filed for declaration to an extent of Acs.15 – 17 gts, out of which Nizam Sugars Limited executed registered sale deed for an extent of Acs.7 – 15 gts vide document No.5707 of 2001 dated 21.11.2001 and disputing the balance suit schedule property on several grounds. The first appellate Court without appreciating the facts properly held that plaintiff has failed to prove the prima-facie case and the trial Court erroneously granted injunction. The first appellate Court totally relied upon the contentions raised by the defendants in the suit. No doubt, there are several issues to be decided in the main suit after adducing the evidence by both the parties. When the suit for declaration is filed and during the pendency of the same, when plaintiff sought for discretionary relief of temporary injunction to protect his rights, it is for the plaintiff to prove his possession. As per the Advocate Commissioner’s report the possession was established by the plaintiff and thus plaintiff made out prima-facie case. 15. As per the decision of this Court in the case of Vuppalapati Ramesh Vs. T.Narayan Reddy, 2023(1) ALT 16 (D.B.) in C.M.A.No.438 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, it was held as follows: “7. Ordinarily, the three main principles which govern the grant or refusal of injunction are (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and (c) irreparable injury. In grant and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role. 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 adjusdge the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. In grant and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role. 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 adjusdge the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. Only on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury, an injunction would be granted. The Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. In dealing with such matters, the Court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties by balancing the conveniences and inconveniences. In addition to the basic principles, temporary injunction, being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.” 16. As per decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chinnamma and others Vs. Nagaraj and others, AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 11, it was held as follows: “This is a discretionary order and that if he can demonstrate that the discretion is validly and correctly exercised, that again there is no ground for interference with that order. I do not dispute the correctness of this proposition either because it is well settled law particularly while dealing with appeals from interlocutory orders, that merely because some other view is possible, the appeal Court should not interfere with a discretionary order where the discretion is correctly, validly and judicially exercised.” 17. In view of the above discussion and the legal principles set out in the above citations, this Court finds that the Order of the first appellate Court is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order of the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.03 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 by confirming the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 dated 25.03.2022. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order of the first appellate Court in C.M.A.No.03 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022 by confirming the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.108 of 2020 in O.S.No.5 of 2020 dated 25.03.2022. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.