ORDER : G.RADHA RAN, J. CRP No.567 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in CMA No.12 of 2017 against the order dated 09.10.2017 in I.A. No.488 of 2015 in O.S. No.118 of 2015, by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. CRP No.1024 of 2019 is filed by the same petitioner- appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in CMA No.13 of 2017 against the order dated 09.10.2017 in I.A. No.489 of 2015 in O.S. No.118 of 2015, by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 3. I.A. No.488 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 from alienating the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. I.A. No.489 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 from making any constructions in the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 4. The petitioner-plaintiff filed affidavits in support of both the applications stating that he was the owner and possessor of open land bearing plot Nos.78 and 79 in Survey No.6 admeasuring 600 sq.yds having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 31 st July, 2007 vide document No.15798/2007 from Sri Repala Ashok Kumar. Sri Repala Ashok Kumar inturn purchased the said property through registered sale deed document No.4442 of 1989 from original pattedars Smt. D. Ananthamma and others through their GPA holder Sri Komma Siva Kumar Reddy, in whose favour GPA was executed vide document No.1337/88, dated 29.11.1988. The petitioner also purchased an open plot No.126 in Survey No.6 admeasuring 300 sq.yds., by way of registered sale deed executed on 25.07.2007 vide document No.19892/2007 from N.V. Shyam Sundar Raju, who inturn purchased the same from D. Ananthamma and others under a registered sale deed document No.4443 of 1989, dated 6-10- 1989 at S.R.O., Sanga Reddy. Medak District. The above plots bearing Nos.78, 79 and 126 were detailed in a layout plan stated to have been approved by Kistareddypet Gram Panchayat. Thus, his title and possession and that of his predecessors’ title could be traced with effect from 06.10.1989. Medak District. The above plots bearing Nos.78, 79 and 126 were detailed in a layout plan stated to have been approved by Kistareddypet Gram Panchayat. Thus, his title and possession and that of his predecessors’ title could be traced with effect from 06.10.1989. The respondent No.1-defendant No.1 dispossessed the petitioner-plaintiff from the afore mentioned land in December 2014 on the strength of concocted and fabricated documents. They were brought into existence in collusion with persons who had neither title nor possession of lands. A new layout was brought into existence in collusion with the concerned authorities by two of the original owners and others claiming under the then original owners, notwithstanding the fact that the original owners had lost title and possession by virtue of sale deeds executed in favour of his vendors in the year 1989. The petitioner and his vendors had perfected title and possession on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by original owners through their GPA. They had also perfected their title by adverse possession by being openly in continuous possession to the knowledge of the real owners for more than twelve years since the date of purchase. Upon the strength of the new layout, the said plot Nos.78, 79 and 126 were erased and the respondent-defendant No.1 used his clout with the local authorities and managed to get entries made in his name in revenue records. The said entries were false and baseless. The respondent No.1-defendant No.1 gifted the land in Sy.No.6 to his wife, as such, he neither had title nor possession. The respondent-defendant No.1 in collusion with the other respondents and others including concerned authorities created fictitious documents to encroach into the lands bearing plot Nos.78, 79 & 126 in Sy. No.6 and removed boundary stones in December, 2014 and levelled lands with a road roller for dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from plot Nos.78, 79 and 126 of Sy.No.6 of Maruthi Nagar shown in the original layout that was existing since 1989 and created new plot numbers. The Plot Nos.78, 79 and 126 in survey No.6 within the boundaries indicated in respect of the plots could be determined and located in the layout which has been created for carving out for new numbers for sale and occupation by purchasers. The Plot Nos.78, 79 and 126 in survey No.6 within the boundaries indicated in respect of the plots could be determined and located in the layout which has been created for carving out for new numbers for sale and occupation by purchasers. The petitioner, who was frequently visiting the site, to his surprise, found that the boundary stones of his plot Nos.78, 79 & 126 in survey No.6 were removed by the respondent-defendant No.1 and forcibly occupied the land in December, 2014 by giving new plot numbers to all the existing plots in survey No.6. He noticed the levelling of his lands by the use of a road roller. The boundary stones existing in respect of plot Nos.78, 79 & 126 were removed to prevent him from identifying them. In the statement of Encumbrance on the property for the period from 01.01.1986 to 22.02.2015, obtained on 23.01.2015 the name the petitioner and his vendor Sri Repala Ashok Kumar and Smt. D. Ananthamma & 3 other vendors and Sri Komma Siva Kumar Reddy were shown. There was no other name mentioned in the E.C. Thus, the petitioner was in continuous possession as true owner of the said three plots. The names of the original pattadars i.e. Smt. D. Ananthamma & three others were continuously shown in the pahanies upto 2001-2002 maintained by the Deputy Tahsildar, Patancheru. But, in the pahani for 2002-2003, the name of one Mr.V. Madhava Reddy (respondent-defendant) was shown. The said entry was made made without any basis. There was a fraudulent transfer of land in the name of respondent-defendant No.1 on the same day i.e. on 31.07.2007 in the afternoon after the registration of the sale deed of the plaintiff on 31.07.2007 in the forenoon. Immediately, the plaintiff applied for search and obtained true copy of the document No.15835/2007 dated 31.07.2007, a sale deed executed by Dandu Narasimha and Dandu Yadaiah (who had executed GPA along with Dandu Ananthamma & Dandu Venkateswara Rao and others for executing sale deed in favour of Sri K. Siva Kumar Reddy on 29.11.1988, registered as document No.1337/88) as legal heirs of Late Dandu Sivalingam and 5 others claiming to be vendors. Smt. D. Ananthamma and others who were parties to the said earlier sale deed could not have executed the subsequent sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 ignoring the earlier sale deed. Smt. D. Ananthamma and others who were parties to the said earlier sale deed could not have executed the subsequent sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 ignoring the earlier sale deed. Through fraudulent sale deed the whole extent of Ac.11.23 gts., in Sy. No.6 was sold to V. Madhava Reddy on the same day. In the said deed, it was mentioned that the said land was sold to the so called vendee on 04.02.1983 itself under a private sale deed styled as “vikrayapatram” and the vendors therein being legal heirs of late Shiva Lingam, in order to fulfill the promise made on the earlier sale transaction dated 04.02.1983 were registering the deed dated 31.07.2007. The private sale referred to was a fraudulent document created to defeat the rights of the bonafide purchaser and to give a color of validity to the illegal sale effected subsequently. It was no sale in the eye of law. Ironically, even prior to the said deed, the vendee V. Madhava Reddy (respondent-defendant No.1) gifted the total land Ac.11.23 gts., in favour of his wife Smt. Neerja vide registered gift settlement deed dated 18.11.2006. Surprisingly, there was no recital in the said deed as to how Mr. V. Madhava Reddy became owner and possessor of the said land. There was no mention about the so called private sale deed dated 04.02.1983 in the said gift settlement deed. Thus, at the time of the so called gift deed, V. Madhava Reddy was neither pattedar nor owner and possessor on the basis of any valid transaction either by sale or otherwise. On the face of it, the said gift deed was irrevocable. In one of the clauses therein the settler V. Madhava Reddy termed it to be a sale deed which rendered the deed invalid. Viewed from any angle, said V. Madhava Reddy did not derive any valid title to the said land. He again got executed and registered two ratification deeds on 06.09.2007 by 8 others and again on 25.04.2013 by 4 others describing them as heirs entitled, ratifying the above mentioned fraudulent sale deed 31.07.2007 in his favour. Apparently, the two ratification deeds do not confer valid rights on V. Madhava Reddy since the sale deed dated 31.07.2007 itself was not a valid one. Apparently, the two ratification deeds do not confer valid rights on V. Madhava Reddy since the sale deed dated 31.07.2007 itself was not a valid one. The alleged sale deeds dated 04.02.1983 and 31.07.2007 and the ratification deeds dated 06.09.2007 and 25.04.2013 and the alleged gift settlement deed dated 18.11.2006 were obtained by the respondent- defendant No.1 in collusion with his vendors, respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 8 who have no right to sell the suit schedule property as they have sold the same to his vendor on 06.10.1989 and 11.10.1989 through their registered GPA holder K.Shiva Kumar Reddy. However, the defendant No.1 with the help of unofficial elements dispossessed the petitioner from the plaint schedule property in December, 2014 to which he was legally entitled as true owner and possessor. The respondent-defendant No.1 taking advantage of the destitute condition of the petitioner was trying to raise structures on the suit schedule property and change the physical features of the suit schedule property and was trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties, as such, prayed to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant No.1 and his men/followers from alienating or making any construction over the suit schedule property. 5. The respondent No.1-defendant No.1 filed his counter contending that one Serikari Pentaiah had three sons and two daughters, by name, Balraj, Yadaiah, Mallesh, Lalitha and Kumanthi. Survey No.6 of the land was their ancestral property. After the death of S. Pentaiah, the land has been transferred in the name of Balraj. The said Balraj sold Ac.6.23 gts., to Dandu Shiva Lingam S/o. Durgaiah under a registered sale deed document No.252 of 1966. Dandu Shiva Lingam died leaving behind him, his wife Ananthamma, eight daughters and three sons, by name, Narsimha, Yadaiah and Venkatesh. The sale deed in favour of Dandu Shiva Lingam was only executed by Balraj that too only for an extent of Ac.6.23 gts., in Sy.No.6 of Patelguda village. After the death of Dandu Shivalingam, the entire Sy.No.6 was wrongly transferred in the name of Ananthamma, Narsimha, Yadaiah and Venkatesh. The said Ananthamma, Narsimha, Yadaiah and Venkatesh sold Ac.11.23 gts., to him under a private sale deed dated 04.02.1983 and delivered possession to him. Ever since the said purchase, he remained in possession of the entire Ac.11.23 gts., of Sy.No.6. The said Ananthamma, Narsimha, Yadaiah and Venkatesh sold Ac.11.23 gts., to him under a private sale deed dated 04.02.1983 and delivered possession to him. Ever since the said purchase, he remained in possession of the entire Ac.11.23 gts., of Sy.No.6. Since he wanted to avail the loan, when the documents were given for the opinion of the Advocate, he was informed that under the private sale deed, loan could not be advanced. Hence, he requested Dandu Narsimha and his brothers to execute the registered sale deed. Accordingly, the Dandu Narsimha and his son, Dandu Yadaiah and his two sons, Shobha Rani W/o. late Venkatesh and his son executed a registered sale deed vide document No.15835 of 2007. Subsequently, as per the advise, he requested all the daughters of Shivalingam to ratify the sale deed to clear the title. All the sisters also executed a ratification deed vide Doct.No.17553 of 2007. Since the prices of lands were going up, he sought advice of his advocate placing entire information before him. His advocate after verification of the record opined that under document No.252 of 1966 only Ac.6.23 gts., were sold to Dandu Shivalingam, therefore the sons of Dandu Shiva Lingam had no title for the remaining extent of Ac.5.00 gts. He was informed that Balraj alone was not entitled to sell more land than what he was entitled. On the basis of the legal opinion, he approached the other sons and daughters of Serikari Pentaiah and got executed ratification of the sale deed executed by Dandu Narsimha and others vide document No15827 of 2007 in his favour. Thus, he became absolute owner and possessor of entire Ac.11.23 gts, of Sy. No. 6 of Patelguda village. After purchasing the land, he constructed compound wall for Ac.11.23 gts., and also raised a mango garden. The original owners delivered possession as early as in the year 1983 under private sale deed and in the year 1988 they were not in possession of the same. The alleged General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Komma Shiva Kumar Reddy is a sham document. The said GPA is allegedly executed only by some of the heirs, who have no exclusive right. Therefore the alleged GPA was an invalid document. Komma Shiva Kumar Reddy did not acquire right to dispose of the property. In the year 1989, the alleged GPA holder had no right to sell the land. The said GPA is allegedly executed only by some of the heirs, who have no exclusive right. Therefore the alleged GPA was an invalid document. Komma Shiva Kumar Reddy did not acquire right to dispose of the property. In the year 1989, the alleged GPA holder had no right to sell the land. The alleged GPA as well as the other registered documents under which the petitioner was claiming right, were false and sham documents. For that reason, the petitioner nor his vendors could not stake any claim for the suit land for the past more than 20 years. 6. The respondent further submitted that he further converted the land in to non-agriculture and sold major extent to different persons. Only Ac.2.23 gts., remained unsold. At present there were mango trees in Ac.2.23 gts., and he retained the said extent of land to use as his personal farm, with an intention to have a farm house. The petitioner and the alleged GPA holder created the sale deeds to cheat and play fraud on the original land holders. There were no such plots and there was no such layout approved by Grampanchayath as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner nor his vendors did not object when the purchasers of the plots from him, constructed houses. They allowed the construction of houses in Sy.No.6, as such they were estopped from claiming the suit plots. All the purchasers who constructed the houses were not parties to the suit. The prayer seeking to restrain him from alienating the land or making any structures was not legally maintainable, as the persons who constructed the houses were in possession and enjoyment and prayed to dismiss the petitions. 7. The trial court i.e. the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy dismissed both the I.A.Nos. 488 and 489 of 2015, as per the order dated 09.10.2017, observing that the location of the suit schedule property in the vast extent of Ac.11.25 gts., in Sy. No.6 could not be made out basing on the documents produced by the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.1-defendant No.1. The question as to the location of the suit schedule property can be decided in the full-fledged trial to be conducted, as such, observed that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case in his favour to restrain the respondent by granting temporary injunction order. The question as to the location of the suit schedule property can be decided in the full-fledged trial to be conducted, as such, observed that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case in his favour to restrain the respondent by granting temporary injunction order. The trial court also observed that the question as to whether the subsequent sale deed executed by respondent No.1-defendant No.1 would stand valid in view of the sale deeds of the petitioner-plaintiff is the question that was required to be decided after full-fledged trial. 8. Aggrieved by the said order in dismissing the petitions, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred CMA Nos.12 and 13 of 2017. Both the CMAs were also dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred these revision petitions. 9. Heard Sri Addepalli Lakshmi Narayana learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Venkatareddy Thipparthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 to 8 were shown as not necessary parties. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the lower appellate court failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner-appellant in accordance with the settled principles of law, which resulted in mis-carriage of justice. The lower appellate court failed to consider the fact that the vendors of the respondent No.1 had no valid and subsisting title and interest over the extent of Ac.11.23 gts., of land and they were not eligible or entitled to convey better title to the respondent No.1. The lower appellate court failed to observe that the respondent No.1 was a trespasser without title. The lower appellate court failed to observe that the title deed of the respondent No.1 vide document No.15835 of 2007 dated 31.07.2007 was registered subsequent to the title deed document No.15798 of 2007 dated 31.07.2007 of the petitioner-appellant. The said fact alone was sufficient to draw an inference that the petitioner-appellant had fair chances and possibilities to succeed in the suit and the balance of convenience exists in his favour. The lower appellate court failed to consider the encumbrance certificates, which would disclose the names of the original pattedars and the names of the vendors of the petitioner- appellant and failed to observe that the alleged ratification deeds were not legally valid. The lower appellate court failed to consider the encumbrance certificates, which would disclose the names of the original pattedars and the names of the vendors of the petitioner- appellant and failed to observe that the alleged ratification deeds were not legally valid. The lower appellate court committed gross error and mistake in observing that the plot Nos.78, 79 and 126 could not be identified in the vast area of Ac.11.23 gts. The lower appellate court ought to have drawn a negative inference and presumption against the respondent No.1, who was trying to trace out his title under the guise of an unregistered private sale deed dated 04.02.1983, which was admittedly an unregistered document, not admissible in law and that the respondent No.1 failed to produce the same and avoided an opportunity to scrutinize the same by the court to come to a just conclusion. The lower appellate court failed to observe that neither the heirs of late Serikari Pentaiah, the heirs of late Dandu Shivalingam nor the respondent No.1 had challenged the registered GPA document No.13337 of 1988 dated 29.11.1988 and the registered sale deed document No.4442 of 1989 and 4443 of 1989 dated 06.10.1989 at any given point of time till date and that they have lost their right to challenge or question the legality or validity of the documents by efflux of time. The lower appellate court ought to have observed that the heirs of late Serikari Pentaiah, the heirs of Dandu Shivalingam and the respondent No.1 had conceded, acquiesced and stood by the acts of the GPA holder and allowed third parties bonafide to acquire title and interest over Ac.11.23 gts., and now they were not permitted to deny the same. He further contended that the respondent No.1 purchased the property knowing the defective title of his vendor and as such, he was not a bonafide purchaser. The plea of good faith was not available to him and he was not entitled for the discretionary relief and prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2018 passed in CMA Nos.12 and 13 of 2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and to allow I.A. Nos.488 and 489 of 2015 filed by him in O.S. No.118 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that as the suit schedule property was not identifiable, both the courts had not granted injunction in favour of the petitioner. There was no illegality in the order of the courts below and prayed to dismiss the revision petitions. 12. Perused the record. 13. As seen from the record, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property to an extent of 900 sq.yds., pertaining to open plots bearing Nos.78, 79 and 126 in Sy. No.6, situated at Maruthinagar, Patelguda Village of Kistareddypet Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal of Medak District with specific boundaries and to declare the sale deed document No.15835 of 2007 dated 31.07.2003 pertaining to respondent No.1-defendant No.1 as null and void and not binding upon him and to evict the defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property and to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, he filed the above IA Nos.488 and 489 of 2015 seeking the above reliefs of restraining the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 not to alienate and not to make any constructions in the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. 14. However, as seen from the pleadings and the affidavits filed by him in support of the petitions, he stated that the respondent No.1- defendant No.1 removed boundary stones of the plots and leveled the land in Sy. No.6 by the use of a Road Roller after dispossessing him in December 2014, as such, the same were not identifiable. He also stated that a new layout was created and new plot numbers were given. As per the counter filed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 also a large extent of land out of Ac.11.23 gts., was sold to different persons after converting the land to non-agriculture and only Ac.2.23 gts., of land remained unsold. He also stated that a new layout was created and new plot numbers were given. As per the counter filed by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 also a large extent of land out of Ac.11.23 gts., was sold to different persons after converting the land to non-agriculture and only Ac.2.23 gts., of land remained unsold. The trial court also in its order observed that primarily it was not clear as to whether the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties claimed by the petitioner- plaintiff was in the extent of Ac.2.23 gts., of the land held by the respondent No.1 and observed that the location of the suit schedule property in the vast extent of Ac.11.23 gts., in Sy No.6 could not be made out basing on the documents produced by the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.1-defendant No.1. The lower appellate court also observing that as per the case of the respondent No.1-defendant No.1, the extra extent of land in suit survey No.6 was disposed of by him under several transactions and a perusal of Ex.R6 shows that several sale deeds have been executed in pursuance of Exs.R1 and R2, as such, considered that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff to grant temporary injunction in his favour and also observed that the petitioner- plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case. 15. For grant of injunction, it was necessary that the property must be clearly identifiable. It is not possible to grant the relief when the property was vague, uncertain or unidentifiable. As per Order VII Rule 3 of CPC , the property in dispute must be described sufficiently to enable identification. The boundaries given by the petitioner were as per the previous layout. When the petitioner-plaintiff himself was stating that the boundary stones were removed and that the land was levelled and new plot numbers were given and that many of the plots were sold to third parties basing on a new layout, no injunction can be granted when the property is not able to be identified clearly. An order restraining alienation or construction over the suit schedule property can only be given when the property is identifiable with specific boundaries. As such, the trial court rightly held that the said aspects raised by the petitioner-plaintiff could be decided only after a full-fledged trial and when the property was not identifiable, no injunction can be granted. An order restraining alienation or construction over the suit schedule property can only be given when the property is identifiable with specific boundaries. As such, the trial court rightly held that the said aspects raised by the petitioner-plaintiff could be decided only after a full-fledged trial and when the property was not identifiable, no injunction can be granted. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the court below to set aside the same. 16. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the orders dated 19.11.2018 passed in CMA No.12 of 2017 and CMA No.13 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, confirming the orders dated 09.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.488 of 2015 and I.A. No.489 of 2015 in O.S. No.118 of 2015 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.