ORDER : Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 14.07.2022 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam reversing the order and decree dated 25.11.2020 in I.A.No.138 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsannapeta. 2. Suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 was filed by plaintiff against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed I.A.No.138 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that plaintiff being owner, has been in possession and enjoyment of wet and dry land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. Plaint schedule property, originally, belonged to Namburu Lakshminarayanamma, W/o late Narasimhulu. The said Lakshminarayanamma leased out the schedule property along with other property to the plaintiff’s father-in-law, Bammidi Apparao on 28.04.1985 under ‘Ambaram Muchilika’ and he used to give Ambaram of 21 bags of paddy to Lakshminarayanamma per year. Lakshminarayanamma sold the schedule property to her tenant i.e. father-in-law of plaintiff on 25.02.1992 under an unregistered sale deed for Rs.87,200/-. Since then plaintiff’s father-in-law enjoyed the schedule property and he got the name of plaintiff mutated in respect of schedule property in revenue records. The revenue authorities updated the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendants are trying to trespass into the schedule property since the second week of July, 2020 and they are also proclaiming in the village. Defendants have no right over the schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed and also application for grant of ad-interim injunction. 4. 1st Respondent/1st defendant filed counter and the same was adopted by 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. In the counter, it was contended interalia that the revenue records relating to schedule property in the name of petitioner are fabricated. Petitioner suppressed the material facts and filed the suit. ‘Ambaram Muchilika’ pleaded by petitioner is forged document and prayed to dismiss the application. Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and got the same cultivated by engaging coolies. 5. During the course of enquiry, Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of petitioner. No documents were marked on behalf of respondents. 6. ‘Ambaram Muchilika’ pleaded by petitioner is forged document and prayed to dismiss the application. Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and got the same cultivated by engaging coolies. 5. During the course of enquiry, Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of petitioner. No documents were marked on behalf of respondents. 6. Trial Court on consideration of documentary evidence as well as pleading and other material available on record, granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner by order dated 25.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Lower appellate Court by order dated 14.07.2022 allowed the C.M.A and dismissed the Injunction application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Sudhakara Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that lower appellate Court went into merits of the suit and dismissed the application. He would also submit that while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, trial Court considered prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, however, appellate court failed to consider the same. He would also submit that the revenue records prima facie prove the possession of petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property. He would further submit that defendants also filed I.A.No.156 of 2020 for grant of injunction and the same was dismissed and against the said dismissal, no appeal was preferred. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would submit that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. The plaintiff, being a trespasser is not entitled to equitable relief of temporary injunction. He would submit that 1st defendant has been working as professor and away from station and the documents filed are manipulated and hence, the lower appellate Court considered all these things and dismissed the application. He would submit that there are no merits in the revision and thus, prayed to dismiss the same. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the lower appellate Court considered principles for grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss? 11. Suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 was seeking perpetual injunction. The schedule property is agricultural land. Plaintiff is claiming title to the schedule property. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the lower appellate Court considered principles for grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss? 11. Suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 was seeking perpetual injunction. The schedule property is agricultural land. Plaintiff is claiming title to the schedule property. According to plaintiff, her father-in-law purchased the plaint schedule property under an unregistered sale deed dated 25.02.1992 executed by Lakshminarayanamma. Plaintiff also filed pattadar pass book and title deed issued by the revenue authorities. 1-B register and adangals were also filed. 1st respondent, on the other hand, would contend that due to employment, he along with his mother lived out of station and they are cultivating the land by engaging labour. He also disputed the ‘Ambaram Muchilika’. 12. For grant of temporary injunction, the Court has to see whether the plaintiff satisfied the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction or not will be decided after evidence is let in by both parties and after full-fledged trial. 13. Prima facie case cannot be confused with prima facie title. Prima facie case is that petitioner should establish his/her possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. Balance of convenience, on being satisfied qua prima facie case, the evidence placed before the Court should be more in favour of petitioner than respondent. Irreparable loss is concerned, if injunction is not granted petitioner will suffer more loss and injury than respondent and even compensation cannot be an adequate relief. 14. As referred to supra, the schedule property is an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. Petitioner asserted that her father-in-law purchased the property under Ex.A-1 unregistered sale deed dated 25.02.1992 from the mother of 1st respondent and he got mutated the name of petitioner in revenue records and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. However, respondents denied the same. Whether Ex.A-1 is genuine document or not will be decided after evidence is let in by the parties. At the interlocutory stage, Courts normally shall not decide as to the genuineness of document, unless appropriate evidence is placed before the Court. 15. Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of petitioner. To rebut the same, no documents were marked on behalf of respondents. At the interlocutory stage, Courts normally shall not decide as to the genuineness of document, unless appropriate evidence is placed before the Court. 15. Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked on behalf of petitioner. To rebut the same, no documents were marked on behalf of respondents. Whether the petitioner is a trespasser or titleholder, is a question to be decided in the main suit, but not at the interlocutory stage. Trial Court, in fact, considered the documents Exs.A-1 to A-13 and granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention here that defendants filed I.A.No.156 of 2020 in the suit for grant of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from entering the schedule property and, also from cutting the standing crop. But the said application was dismissed on merits, however, no appeal was preferred against the said order. 16. The extent of schedule property is Ac.0.30 cents in S.No.166/6; Ac.0.30 cents in S.No.165/5; Ac.0.40 cents in S.No.159/11A and Ac.0.09cents in S.No.196/10. Exs.A-2 and A-3 are pattadar pass book and title deed filed by the plaintiff, reflect the said extents. Ex.A-4 is e-pass book, also reflects the plaint schedule property in the name of petitioner/plaintiff. Exs.A-5 to A-9 adangals also reflects the name of plaintiff in respect of schedule property. Lower Appellate Court failed to consider these documents. Lower Appellate Court placed reliance upon unregistered sale deed and concluded that it requires stamp duty and registration. Lower appellate Court entertained a doubt regarding revenue records, since the name of petitioner was mutated instead of her father-in-law and also non-filing of mutation proceedings. Lower appellate Court also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 and also Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.Rs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.Rs, CIVIL APPEAL No.1382 of 2022 dated 03.03.2022 and held that in view of title dispute, suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable and hence, grant of temporary injunction does not arise. 17. As observed supra, at the interlocutory stage, the Court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Even assuming for a while that, Ex.A-1 unregistered sale deed requires stamp duty and penalty, the revenue records filed by the plaintiff amply proved possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. 17. As observed supra, at the interlocutory stage, the Court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Even assuming for a while that, Ex.A-1 unregistered sale deed requires stamp duty and penalty, the revenue records filed by the plaintiff amply proved possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Respondents/ defendants having pleaded title to the schedule property, neither filed any document nor revenue record, stood in their name. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff’s father-in-law is claiming title to the schedule property through 1st mother of 1st respondent. Since respondent is also claiming title to the schedule property, he should have filed relevant material before the Court in support of his case i.e. revenue records as also cultivation the land by engaging workers. No such evidence was placed before the Court in interlocutory stage. 18. In Wander Ltd and another Vs. Antox India P Ltd., (1990) Suppl SCC 727, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: 9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated: “...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must 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.” The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the ‘balance of convenience’ lies.” The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted. 13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately. 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [ (1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156 ] : (SCR 721) (emphasis is mine) “... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.” 19. Lower appellate Court, in the opinion of this Court, exceeded its jurisdiction and confused regarding difference between permanent injunction on one side and ad-interim/ temporary injunction on the other. Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the scope and difference between Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Sec 37 Specific Relief Act 1963. Title dispute, if any, will be decided after the evidence is let in by the parties. It is too early to go into title dispute that to at the interlocutory stage without the evidence available on record. 20. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial review. The duty of this Court is to see that the Courts shall not exceed its power that is conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate courts within its bounds of jurisdiction. 21. High Court while exercising power under Article 227 can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances: (a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. 21. High Court while exercising power under Article 227 can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances: (a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. (b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction. (c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice and (i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise. 22. Keeping in view the scope of revision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the lower appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by going into merits of the case at the interlocutory stage. In fact, as observed supra, trial court considered all the material available on record and granted temporary injunction. Hence, the order of lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 14.07.2022 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam is set aside. The order and decree dated 25.11.2020 in I.A.No.138 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsannapeta is restored. Plaintiff shall file affidavit before the Trial court that plaintiff shall not alienate the property pending the suit or alter the nature of the property. Plaintiff shall also file undertaking affidavit before the trial court in consonance with Order 39 Rule 3A (A.P. state Amendment). No order as to costs. Since the suit is of the year 2020, the trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.