Sy.nos.142, 143, 110/B was laid out into plots by the plaintiff’s vendor, who was the original owner of that property; and, that the plaintiff had purchased plot no.28 in survey nos.142 and 110/B admeasuring 408 square yards, which is the plaint schedule property and that when an interference with her possession was sought to be made, she had filed the suit and the aforesaid interlocutory application for temporary injunction. The defendants had resisted the said application filed by the plaintiff inter alia contending that Bal Reddy is not the owner and possessor of the lands in Survey nos.143/1, 143/2 and S.No.1210/P of Hanamkonda revenue village and that Pegadapalli Gram Panchayat comes under Hasanparthy Mandal of Warangal and that the plaintiff by clubbing the areas of two different properties is trying to encroach the land of the others and that of the defendants and that there is a dispute about identification of schedule property and that in the circumstances, the contention that the property was being laid out does not arise and that the vendor of the plaintiff had declared before the ULC authorities that he is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy. nos.110/C, 142, 144 of an extent of Ac.3.06 guntas, Ac.15.13 guntas and Ac.0.13 guntas respectively and that the vendor of the plaintiff had no land in Sy.nos.143 and 110/B and that therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any rights in the plaint schedule property and that the vendor of the plaintiff had executed the sale deed for plot in Sy.no.142 and that having found that no such land is available, they had planned to grab the property of the others and got executed a rectification deed and that the said fact shows the intention of the plaintiff to grab the property and that the plaintiff’s sale deed and the rectification deed are not valid and that the land in the survey nos.143/1, 143/2 and 110/B exclusively belongs to the 2nd defendant and she had sold Ac.10.00 guntas of
