M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. - (1.)These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, viz., (i) C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 filed by the plaintiffs; and (ii) C.M.A. No. 1331 of 2019 filed by the 11th defendant arise out of a single order, dated 07.12.2018, of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, at Ongole, passed in I.A. No. 793 of 2018 in O.S. No. 320 of 2015.
(2.)We have heard the submissions of Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2019 ('plaintiffs', for brevity); and of Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel appearing for the 11th defendant/appellant in C.M.A. No. 1331 of 2018 ('defendant', for brevity). Defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 16 are stated to be not necessary parties to these appeals. We have perused the material record.
2.1. The parties in these appeals shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit for convenience and clarity.

(3.)The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute title holders of the plaint schedule property with possession, that is, plots 1 to 6 shown in the plaint plan and for perpetual injunction and costs. The 11th defendant is also resisting the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed the subject interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('Code', for brevity) requesting to grant a temporary injunction restraining the 11th defendant from making any constructions in the schedule land or in any way changing the physical features of the schedule land pending the disposal of the suit. The 11th defendant filed a counter and resisted the said application. By the order impugned these appeals, the trial Court disposed of the petition by holding in the operation portion of the impugned order as follows:

'Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief since the 11th respondent already obtained permanent injunction orders under Ex. B5 in respect of the petition schedule property, therefore, in view of the above preponderance authoritative pronouncements it is just and necessary to direct the 11th respondent to execute undertaking in favour of petitioners (within two weeks from the date of this order) that he would not make any constructions in the schedule vacant site or in any way change the physical features of the schedule land till disposal of the main suit. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.'

As already noted, both the plaintiffs and the 11th defendant are aggrieved of the aforesaid order and hence, these two appeals are filed.