RAPOLU CHINNA KISTAIAH Vs. Y. ILAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2016 in C.M.A.No.184 of 2014 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby the order (dismissing temporary injunction application) passed in I.A.No.819 of 2014 in O.S.No.306 of 2014 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy was set aside and consequently, temporary injunction was granted to the plaintiff/respondent herein.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

(3.) The injunction application in I.A.No.819 of 2014 was dismissed by the Court below primarily on the ground that the plaintiff has not mentioned as to whether his wife has sold the suit schedule property to A. Surender and delivered possession to him. The Court below also made reference to filing of suit O.S.No.747 of 2008, filed by A. Surender, which came to be dismissed. The Court below held that the suit being for injunction it is for the plaintiff to establish physical possession of the suit property; that no document is filed by the plaintiff, prima facie , to establish possession; contrary to it the defendant has filed the receipt cum agreement of sale (Ex.A3), allegedly, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in the year 2003 itself and claimed possession on the property.