JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. MFA No.1840/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal, in O.S.No.1192/2024 on I.A.No.IV filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for restraining the defendant Nos.14 to 17 from changing the nature of suit schedule property is dismissed. 2. MFA No.1868/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal, in O.S.No.1192/2024 on I.A.No.III filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, thereby, the application filed for restraining the defendant Nos.14 to 17 from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property is dismissed. 3. As per the pleadings in plaint and the written statement originally suit schedule property was belonging to Abdul Kudas being the owner of land to the extent of 6 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.80 having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 05.04.2020. Thereafter the said Abdul Kudas sold the entire property 6 acres 37 guntas in favour Abdul Khadar Sab through registered sale deed dated 27.02.1922. On 02.02.1938 one Hajeerabi purchased 3 acres 18½ guntas from Abdul Khan towards eastern side. It is the case of plaintiffs that Hajeerabi purchased the entire extent of 6 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.80, but according to the defendants the plaintiffs’ grandmother namely Hajeerabi purchased only half portion of Sy.No.80, which is 3 acres 18½ guntas towards eastern side. 4. The learned counsel for the defendants produced the sale deed of the year 1937, in which the recital is towards eastern side 3 acres 18½ guntas which was sold out to Hajeerabi. When Hajeerabi had become defaulter of land revenue, therefore Government has put the said land i.e., eastern portion of Sy.No.80 into auction and one Patel Siddha Reddy was successful bidder of the said property, but reconfirmed the land in favour of Hajeerabi. 5. It is the case of defendants that their grandfather Mohammad Khan, S/o. Jhon Khan retained the western half portion to the extent of 3 acres 18½ guntas. Therefore, prima facie it is revealed that Hajeerabi had purchased and had become the owner and had title only to the eastern side to the extent 3 acres 18½ guntas. 5. It is the case of defendants that their grandfather Mohammad Khan, S/o. Jhon Khan retained the western half portion to the extent of 3 acres 18½ guntas. Therefore, prima facie it is revealed that Hajeerabi had purchased and had become the owner and had title only to the eastern side to the extent 3 acres 18½ guntas. The defendants have produced prima facie materials to show that Hajeerabi had purchased only half extent of 6 acres 37 guntas i.e., towards eastern side. Therefore, the defendants have prima facie shown that Mohammed Khan  retained the western half portion to the extent of 3 acres 18½ guntas. Thereafterwards, the land in Sy.No.80 was divided into Sy.Nos.80/1 and 80/2. The eastern side of extent was numbered as Sy.No.80/1, which was purchased by Hajeerabi and western side property retained by Mohamed Khan was phoded and assigned number as Sy.No.80/2. Thereafter the western portion of the property, which is Sy.No.80/2 was sold to one Papareddy and Mankaiah. One Venkata Reddy was the brother of Papareddy and there was partition as per panchayat parikhat dated 13.06.1987. 6. The defendant Nos.1 to 13 along with Venkata Reddy sold suit property to defendant No.14 through registered sale deed dated 16.04.2010. Therefore, from the materials produced by the defendants of various sale deeds prima facie shows that the plaintiff's grandmother namely, Hajeerabi had become the owner of only to the half extent of 3 acres 18½ guntas towards eastern side, but the plaintiffs are claiming that Hajeerabi had  purchased the entire extent 6 acres 18 guntas, for which the plaintiffs have not produced any prima facie materials, whereas the defendants have produced the sale deeds that the Hajeerabi had purchased only half portion towards eastern side to the extent of 3 acres 18½ guntas. Therefore, this is rightly appreciated by the trial court that the plaintiffs fails to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience, whereas the defendants shown that the land was sold out to Wipro Limited and thereafter M.R. Shobha through an exchange deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs prima facie has not shown who is in possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, on the basis of material produced by both the sides the trial court has correctly assessed and observed that plaintiffs fails to make out prima facie case. 7. Hence, applications filed by the plaintiffs are correctly dismissed by the trial court. Therefore, the plaintiffs prima facie has not shown who is in possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, on the basis of material produced by both the sides the trial court has correctly assessed and observed that plaintiffs fails to make out prima facie case. 7. Hence, applications filed by the plaintiffs are correctly dismissed by the trial court. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the applications filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.