D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides

( 2 ) THOUGH the matter is listed under the caption "interlocutory", with consent of both parties, the mam Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is heard and disposed of by this judgment

( 3 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 6-7-2005, passed by the III Additional District judge, Warangal, disposing of the application i A No. 126 of 2004 in OS. No 4 of 2004, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from in any way alienating the petition schedule properties or inducting third parties into the petition schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.

( 4 ) THE appellants are plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are defendant Nos. 6, 14, 15 and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are defendant Nos. 16 to 19, respectively.

( 5 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellants, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 will be referred to as "the plaintiffs", "defendant Nos. 6, 14 and 15" and "defendant Nos. 16 to 19", respectively.

( 6 ) THE factual background is that an extent of Ac. 17-28 guntas of land was purchased by one Jeedi Ramulu under an agreement of sale, dated 20-7-1967, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,425/ -. Consequently the possession has been delivered to the said Jeedi Ramulu. Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are the sons of said Jeedi Ramulu and defendant No. 5 by name Varikoti Sarojana is the wife of one of the brothers of defendant nos. 2 to 4 and 6. The said Jeedi Ramulu died in the year 1983. After several years, the defendants Nos. 2 to 6 have made an application before the Mandal Revenue officer, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal district, under Section 5-A of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, (for brevity "the ROR Act") and got the sale transaction of the suit schedule property regularized and consequently they became the joint owners of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, defendant Nos. 2 to 6 disposed of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 16 to 19, who in turn, developed and plotted the entire suit schedule property and sold away almost all plots in favour of third parties and only few plots are left. Even those plots were allegedly disposed of to third parties under different agreements of sale. Whether the remaining plots were really disposed of or not is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided by this Court since there is any amount of dispute between the parties in this regard.

( 7 ) AT this stage, the plaintiffs, who are the sons of defendant No. 1, filed the present suit for partition. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, in which event they would be entitled to an extent of about more than 2 acres.

( 8 ) THE Court below having considered the material available on record, rejected to grant ad interim injunction. However, keeping in view the nature of the suit, the Court below directed the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein (defendant Nos. 16 to 19) to deposit the share of the plaintiffs as per the sale deeds. In fact, the said direction was given in the light of the willingness on the part of the said defendant nos. 16 to 19. Aggrieved by the said order of the Court below, the present Civil miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

( 9 ) SRI N. Subba Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, submits that it was an admitted fact that the suit schedule property was purchased by one Jeedi Ramulu, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and this fact is established by the undisputed joint declaration made by defendant Nos. 2 to 6 before the Mandal revenue Officer, Hanamkonda Mandal, warangal District, for the purpose of regularization of the transaction relating to the suit schedule property. Therefore, he submits that when once the suit schedule pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document