G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) AN important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the binding nature of the temporary injunction Order granted by the lower Court on the L. Rs. of the party, who suffered the Order as also the interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of Code of Civil Procedure,

( 2 ) THE L. P. A. arises against the Orders passed by the learned Single Judge in c. C. No. 1412 of 1987 in A. S. No. 2301 of 1987 dated 3-4-1998.

( 3 ) BEFORE going into the contentions raised in the L. P. A. , it is necessary to refer to the factual matrix which lead to the filing of the appeal. Plaintiffs filed suit in O. S. No. 11 of 1981 before the learned Additional district Judge, Sangareddy for partition of the three schedule properties namely plaint a , b and c properties. One mr. Sharfuddin was Defendant No, 1 in the said suit. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 Sharfuddin that b schedule property is his self acquired property. Except claiming the interest in b schedule property, he did not contest the matter. After the trial, the suit was dismissed in respect of the b schedule property holding they were self-acquired properties of Sharfuddin. b schedule property consists of agricultural lands in S. No. 205/1 and 206/1 having an total extent of ac. 20-31 gts.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in so far as it relates to the dismissal of the suit as far as b schedule property was concerned, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A. S. No. 2370 of 1987. However, the appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27-8-1998. Against the said judgment and decree, the matter was carried further in L. P. A. No. 282 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on 21-6-2001. Thus, the judgment of the trial court became final. However, the present proceedings arises out of the interlocutory orders passed by the appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal in A. S. No. 2301 of 1987.

( 5 ) THE Appellants in A. S. No. 2301 of 1987 filed an application in C. M. P. No. 13578 of 1999 for injunction restraining Sharfuddin, defendant No. 1 in the suit from alienating the b schedule property. However, the court granted Orders of status quo and the status quo Orders were made absolute on 15-10-1987. The Appellants filed C. M. P. No. 16874 of 1987 in the appeal against sharfuddin under Section 94 and Order 39 rule 2-A Code of Civil Procedure to detain him in civil prison, since he had alienated the b schedule property and making constructions on the land during the subsistence of status quo Orders. In the said petition, Sharfuddin filed a counter stating that he gifted the property to his sons in 1981 and his sons were making constructions and therefore, the Court passed an Order finding that there was no violation of the injunction orders and further directed that Sharfuddin should not make any further constructions. However, Sharfuddin died on 22-10-1991 and his sons were added L. Rs. as respondents No. 3 to 6 in A. S. No. 2301 of 1987. After the L. Rs. were brought on record, they filed C. M. P. No. 15501 and 15511 of 1997 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 civil Procedure Code to grant interim injunction restraining the Sub-Inspector of police and the Appellants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the b schedule property. After the matter was contested, Court held that the L. Rs. of sharfuddin were in possession and enjoyment and therefore, granted the injunction Order and the same was in force.

( 6 ) WHILE so, C. C. No. 1412 of 1997 was filed by the Appellants alleging contempt of the Orders dated 15-5-1997 on the ground that on 11-4-1997 the respondent No. 6 and on 30-5-1997, the respondent No. 7 alienated b schedule property by executing registered sale deeds. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were also bound by the status quo Orders passed by the Court against their father Sharfuddin. The petition was contested by the respondents on the grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document