turn had sold the same in favour of Golla Narasaiah (Defendant No.1), who in turn sold the same in favour of S. Rukma Reddy, Katipally Rahul Reddy and Thumla Narsa Reddy (Defendant Nos.4 to 6) vide a registered sale deed bearing No.7318 of 2012, dated 28.06.2012. The trial Court by elaborately considering the respective contentions prima facie came to conclusion that the claim of the respondents is based on the registered sale deeds, whereas the claim of the petitioner being based on the sale deeds executed in his favour by his vendors claiming to acquire title and possession over the property through an unregistered sale deed. The schedule property being open land had given weight to the registered sale deeds and recorded a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove his possession and following the well settled principle that possession follows title found that respondents had a better title for the purpose of considering the injunction petition. As against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Principle Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A. No.837 of 2012 in O.S.No.213 of 2012, petitioner filed C.M.A. No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court-Cum-Additional District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad. The appellate Court while dismissing the appeal had given a finding that the trial Court had failed to consider all the evidence on record and also had recorded a finding that between the petitioner and the respondents there is no clear demarcation with regard to the property.
