RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 106 arising out of I. A. No. 926 of 2002 in O. S. No. 38 of 2002, which is pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga reddy District at N. T. R. Nagar.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the respondents 1 and 2, who were plaintiffs in the suit, had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein and some other respondents herein, which was numbered as O. S. No. 38 of 2002.

( 3 ) THE parties to the appeal are described as arrayed in the original suit.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed LA. No. 926 of 2002 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the defendants 1 and 106 restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property to the extent of Ac. 379-10 guntas situated at bachepally village.

( 5 ) THE second plaintiff in her affidavit stated that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to her father late Mohd. Nawaz Jung, who died several years back, survived by her, the 1st plaintiff and other heirs. After the death of her father, one of her step brothers named Mohd. Hashim Ali khan filed a suit bearing No. 182/1345 F in the Court of Darul Kaza for partition of the suit schedule properties and other properties. The said suit was re-numbered as O. S. No. 42 of 1962 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On 24-11-1970 a preliminary decree was passed for partition of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed LA. No. 854 of 1984 for passing of the final decree in respect of the suit schedule properties and other properties. While so, the plaintiffs and other parties in O. S. No. 42 of 1962 entered into an agreement of sale on 28-6-1955 with one Kasani Ramulu, who is the father of defendants 106 and 107 for the sale of the suit schedule properties. But subsequently the agreement was given up, as the purchasers did not keep up to the terms of the contract. Thereafter, a fresh agreement was entered into between the parties on 4-12-1972 in favour of Kasani Ramulu and also in favour of defendants 26 to 107. The said agreement was also given up, as the purchasers did not keep up the promise. Thereafter defendant No. 106 entered into memorandum of understanding dt. 6-9-1995 with her and others as defendant No. 106 is the real beneficiary under the agreement of sale dt. 4-12-1972. The said memorandum of understanding was not again kept up by defendant No. 106. Therefore it was also cancelled by a notice dt. 3-3-1997 issued to the defendant No. 106 but he did not give any reply. Thus, the memorandum of understanding was also cancelled.

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 26 to 107 had filed an application for regularization of the agreement of sale dated 4-12-1972 under Section 5-A of the ror Act before the Mandal Revenue Officer without notice to the plaintiffs and other parties to the memorandum of understanding dt. 4-12-1972. The Mandal revenue Officer had regularized the said agreement of sale. When the matter came up before the Revenue Divisional Officer, East division, Hyderabad, the defendants 1 to 107 had entered into a compromise under which the defendants 1 to 25 had taken ac. 80-00 of land and the balance of the land was given to defendants 26 to 107.

( 7 ) IT was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 25 had absolutely nothing to do with the suit schedule property and that their claim for cultivation or otherwise is totally unfounded and illegal and that those defendants were not given any possession either by the plaintiffs or any other parties to the suit. Thus, it is stated that the defendants 1 to 107 in collusion between themselves and the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer have caused immense loss to the plaintiffs.

( 8 ) IT is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the declaration of their rights in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document