ORDER : ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. C.R.P.No.211 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 17.12.2024, in C.M.A.No.9 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon, wherein the C.M.A. was dismissed, confirming the order, dated 19.08.2024, in I.A.No.972 of 2022 in O.S.No.1449 of 2022 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 2. C.R.P.No.276 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 17.12.2024, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Jangaon, wherein, the C.M.A. was dismissed, confirming the order, dated 19.08.2024, in I.A.No.971 of 2022 in O.S.No.1447 of 2022 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 3. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for respondent in both the civil revision petitions. 4. Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same issue/matter, they are being heard together. Facts in C.R.P.No.211 of 2025 are being considered. 5. Suit bearing O.S.No.1449 of 2022 is filed in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon for perpetual injunction. Plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. She claims that her husband acquired the property by way of a registered sale deed bearing No.50 of 2014, dated 04.01.2014. That she is the owner and possessor of house plot admeasuring 200 sq. yds at Venkanna Kunta. That revision petitioner acquired the property through gift settlement deed bearing No.3492/2015, dated 22.05.2015, regularized the said property in municipal records No.G- 1/LRS-969/2016, dated 08.09.2016 and raised compound wall. That a building permit order No.41111/JANG/0334/2021, dated 17.05.2021, was issued for the plot carved out of Sy.No.122/1/1. 6. Respondent is defendant in the suit. Respondent claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Survey No.122/1 admeasuring 586.66 sq. yds purchased vide registered sale deed document bearing No.2056 of 2010, dated 26.03.2010 and that he constructed the compound wall around the suit schedule property and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. That the husband of the revision petitioner/plaintiff malafidely, deliberately, intentionally and illegally executed the gift settlement deed in respect of the land in Survey No.122/1/1 admeasuring an extent of 200 sq. yds, that there was no mention of plot numbers. That the husband of the revision petitioner/plaintiff malafidely, deliberately, intentionally and illegally executed the gift settlement deed in respect of the land in Survey No.122/1/1 admeasuring an extent of 200 sq. yds, that there was no mention of plot numbers. Respondent/defendant further states that he has mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of Indian Overseas Bank vide registered document No.2083/2014, dated 09.04.2014 by depositing the said title deed. The registered mortgage deed is filed before the Court. For non-payment of mortgage amount, notices were issued, a paper publication was also issued in various newspapers and Bank took possession of the property on 08.06.2015, the property is in the custody of the Bank. 7. Meanwhile, I.A.No.972 of 2022 came to be filed by revision petitioner i.e., plaintiff in the suit. I.A.No.972 of 2022 is filed with a prayer to grant temporary injunction and the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, having considered the exhibits marked for petitioner i.e., Exs.P1 to P20 and exhibits marked for respondent Exs.R1 to R8, by order dated 19.08.2024, held as follows: “19. The contentions of both sides disclose that there are complicated questions of title involved and admittedly both are claiming property through the children of late Sri Naragoni Balaiah. As this is a suit for simple injunction that too as this is an application for temporary injunction, it is not permissible to go into the complicated questions of title of parties and record any finding. As this is an application for grant of temporary injunction the only thing to be seen is, as to who among the parties is in possession of the property in dispute as on the date of filing the suit and the title of the property will assume significance only after possession. As the petitioner is seeking temporary injunction claiming that she raised compound wall after the proceedings were issued by Municipality vide proceeding No. G1/LRS- 969/2016 dated: 8.9.2016, the petitioner should prima facie establish the same. On perusal of Ex.P4 which is proceeding of Municipality Jangaon vide proceeding No. G1/LRS- 969/2016 dated: 08-09-2016 it is seen that the location of the property in the name of petitioner is at Venkannakunta and the total extent of the layout/plot area regulated is 160.25 sq.mts or 1724.91664 sq.feet. On perusal of Ex.P4 which is proceeding of Municipality Jangaon vide proceeding No. G1/LRS- 969/2016 dated: 08-09-2016 it is seen that the location of the property in the name of petitioner is at Venkannakunta and the total extent of the layout/plot area regulated is 160.25 sq.mts or 1724.91664 sq.feet. As it is the contention of petitioner that she raised compound wall after said proceedings were issued, then the compound wall cannot be for any area exceeding the regulated plot which is for 160.25 sq. mts. It is admitted by petitioner in her reply affidavit that her property is located between two existing houses. Even if we consider that the total property acquired by petitioner under Ex.P3 from her husband is between two existing houses there should be compound wall around 160.25 sq.mts plot and remaining land which petitioner's husband owned should be either open plot without compound wall or with separate compound wall. But the photographs relied by petitioner i.e. P18 only shows a close up view of compound wall on one side with writing. "This plot belongs to IOB Bank HNK Branch, 7893812318". Petitioner failed to show the picture of entire property. On the other hand respondent filed photographs of the same compound wall and these photographs Ex.R4 they disclose that between two existing houses there is one open plot which is surrounded by a compound wall with same writing. "This plot belongs to IOB Bank Hanamkonda Branch, 7893812318". It do not disclose any separation of property that petitioner acquired from her husband after husband gifted 200 sq.yards to the petitioner. Added to this there is no ongoing construction work visible in the photographs filed by petitioner. Further when the alleged regulated land is for 160.25 sq.mts or 1724.9166 sq. feet, the petitioner is claiming relief only for 579.29 sq.feet by showing same boundaries in petition schedule property which are shown for entire 200 sq. yards or 1800 sq. feet. The point whether the open land shown in Ex.P18 and Ex.R4 photographs belongs to petitioner or respondent cannot be decided at this stage and it is a matter of trial. There is no approved layout filed by either parties and both parties are claiming through same family i.e., Naragoni Balaiah's family members. yards or 1800 sq. feet. The point whether the open land shown in Ex.P18 and Ex.R4 photographs belongs to petitioner or respondent cannot be decided at this stage and it is a matter of trial. There is no approved layout filed by either parties and both parties are claiming through same family i.e., Naragoni Balaiah's family members. As admitted by petitioner there are litigations between the children of first wife of late Naragoni Balaiah and the children of second wife of late N.Balaiah and wrong entries made in revenue record and several sale deeds executed in respect of property acquired from late Sri Naragoni Balaiah in Sy.No.122 though with sub-divisions. Hence in presence of discrepancies in the extent of land to which the petitioner allegedly constructed compound wall, it is not proper to grant temporary injunction as it would lead to irreparable loss to respondent who is also claiming right, title and possession. Hence the point is answered in negative.” 8. The trial Court dismissed the application, ad-interim injunction (ex parte order) granted earlier was vacated. 9. Aggrieved by order, dated 19.08.2024, in I.A.No.972 of 2022 in O.S.No.1449 of 2022, revision petitioner/plaintiff preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.9 of 2024, but the Principal District Judge at Jangaon, considering the entire factual matrix of the case, by order dated 17.12.2024, held as follows: “17. It is evident that since both the parties are claiming the suit schedule property, hence, the title and possession of the property is in dispute. On perusal of Ex.P4/proceedings of Municipal Jangaon dated 08.09.2016 along with Map, the location of the property at Venkannakunta is 160.25 square meters or 1724.91664 sq. feet. The contention of the petitioner for raising compound wall cannot be for any area exceeding the regulated plot which is for 160.25 sq. mts. But, according to the reply affidavit of the petitioner, she submitted that his property is located between two existing houses, which means that there should be compound wall around 160.25 square meters plot and remaining land which petitioner alienated from her husband should be as either open plot without compound wall or with separate compound wall. mts. But, according to the reply affidavit of the petitioner, she submitted that his property is located between two existing houses, which means that there should be compound wall around 160.25 square meters plot and remaining land which petitioner alienated from her husband should be as either open plot without compound wall or with separate compound wall. But as per Ex.P18 and Ex.R4, the photographs relied by the petitioners and Respondents, displays that a close up view of compound wall on one side with writing that "this plot belongs to IOB Bank HNK Branch, with mobile number mentioned as 7893812318“.The point whether the plot/open land shown in Ex.P18 and Ex.R4 belongs to the petitioner or respondent remains disputed and it cannot be decided in this petition. There is no approved layout filed by both the parties or through Naragoni family members, which is subject matter of the suit and it can be decided after the full trial in the suit but not in this petition. 18. It is an admitted fact that there were disputes between male members of late Naragoni Balaiah i.e., between the children of first wife of late Naragoni Balaiah and the children of second wife of late N. Balaiah and wrong entries made in revenue record and several sale deeds were executed in respect of property by late Sri Naragoni Balaiah in Sy.No.122 with sub-division numbers. There are many discrepancies in the extent of land to which the petitioner claiming and she alleged to have constructed compound wall. The same property is claimed by the respondent. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned and discussed above, it is not just and proper to grant temporary injunction, since it would lead to further controversy and disputes between both the parties with regard to their right, title and possession. The petitioner failed to prove her prima facie title of the petition schedule property and also failed to prove that balance of convenience is in her favour. There is no irreparable loss going to be occurred to the petitioner, if injunction is not granted. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction. 19. The trial Court, after considering the case and contention of the both side has come to a just and proper conclusion. There are no infirmities or irregularities committed by trial Court. There is no irreparable loss going to be occurred to the petitioner, if injunction is not granted. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction. 19. The trial Court, after considering the case and contention of the both side has come to a just and proper conclusion. There are no infirmities or irregularities committed by trial Court. The order under question does not suffer from any illegalities and irregularities, thus the same needs no interference by this Court. The point Nos.1 to 3 are decided against the appellants by holding that the order and decreetal order in question is sustainable in law and not liable to set-aside. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought.” 10. Principal District Judge, Jangaon, confirmed the order of the trial Court. The present revision petition is filed by appellant/plaintiff challenging the order in C.M.A.No.9 of 2024 on the ground that the property(ies) claimed by the plaintiff and defendant are different and located in different survey numbers and as such, the plaintiff ought to have been protected with the interim injunction and that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff proved her possession, whereas the defendant did not. 11. It is observed that revision petitioner/plaintiff in the suit for perpetual injunction relied upon Ex.P2. It is noticed that the land purchased by the revision petitioner is in Survey No.122/1/1. Ex.R2 is the sale deed relied upon by the respondent/defendant, the land purchased by respondent/defendant is in Survey No.121/1. From the record, it is observed that the land which is mortgaged by the respondent/defendant with the Overseas Bank is in Survey No.121/1 and for non-payment of the amount, Bank has taken custody of the property. 12. It is not in dispute that the Naragoni’s family are the owners of the said property and there are disputes between the main members of the family and a suit for partition i.e., O.S.No.45 of 2010, a suit for perpetual injunction i.e., O.S.No.32 of 1981, are filed among the male members of the family and registered sale deeds were executed in respect of property in Survey No.122/1 in favour of certain third parties. It is further observed from the record that the revision petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant are claiming title of the same property through registered sale deeds from the Naragoni’s family. 13. It is further observed from the record that the revision petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant are claiming title of the same property through registered sale deeds from the Naragoni’s family. 13. Both parties are claiming the suit schedule property i.e., property which is stated to be between two houses with a compound wall. Revision petitioner/plaintiff claims that she was gifted property admeasuring a parcel of land of 200 sq. yds by her husband, purchased by way of a registered gift deed in the year 2014. It is the case of the respondent/defendant that he purchased the property of 586.66 sq. yds by way of registered sale deed in the year 2010. From the record, it is observed and is also logical that revision petitioner/plaintiff can raise a compound wall to the extent what she has been gifted by her husband and not anything beyond that. The discrepancies in the extent of land to which the revision petitioner/plaintiff is claiming to have allegedly constructed a compound wall, the very same property is claimed by the respondent/defendant. The Principal District Judge at Jangaon was of the opinion that the grant of temporary injunction to the revision petitioner/plaintiff would lead to further controversy and disputes with regard to right, title and possession, as revision petitioner failed to establish prima facie title of the petition schedule property cannot be held to be bad in the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated by the Principal District Judge, Jangaon. 14. Be that as it may, there are disputes between family members of Naragoni’s family (owners of the land) and they filed a suit for partition and also a suit for injunction with respect to properties in Survey Nos.121/1 and 122 with sub- division(s). In view of these disputes existing as per record, this Court deems it appropriate that suit bearing O.S.No.1449 of 2022 be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, since it is submitted that respondent/defendant paid entire mortgage amount to the Bank. 15. On the other hand, it is the case of revision petitioner/plaintiff that she has obtained the municipality permission for constructing a compound wall and has constructed. Both the parties are at liberty to file appropriate applications at relevant point of time expressing their grievance or apprehension with regard to any steps being initiated by any of the parties to the suit. 16. Both the parties are at liberty to file appropriate applications at relevant point of time expressing their grievance or apprehension with regard to any steps being initiated by any of the parties to the suit. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there are disputes between Naragoni’s family members, this Court deems it appropriate that O.S.No.1449 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, as sought for by both the counsels on record. Any observations made in this order shall not have any influence or bearing on the outcome of the proceedings before the trial Court. 17. With the above observations, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.