This CRP is directed against the order and decretal order dated 15.03.2012 passed in I.A. No. 24 of 2013 in O.S. No. 36 of 2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit for injunction and I.A. No.103 of 2012 for grant of ad interim injunction.The lower Court granted injunction order dated 29.10.2012. Then the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 24 of 2013 seeking police aid. By an order dated 15.03.2013 the lower Court allowed the said petition and ordered police aid to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The main contention of Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the lower Court ought to have considered that no application was filed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC and without resorting to the procedure prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) CPC and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court straightaway granted police aid. He has relied on a decision reported in Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307).

4. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent, has referred to the affidavit filed by the respondent herein in support of the application filed seeking police protection and the counter filed by the petitioner herein in the said application and submits that the Court below, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, granted police aid. It is also submitted that a specific averment of the respondent that the petitioner obstructed while he was attempted to make construction on 22.12.2012 is not denied. He has also relied on the judgments of this Court reported in Polavarapu Nagamani v. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao (2010(6) ALT 92(DB), and B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. K. Naga Raju Yadav (2013(1) ALT 532) in support of his contention that where situation warrants the Courts have been granting police aid.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are brothers. The specific case of the respondent is that his father late Malakondaiah sold 20 Ankanams of land out of 30 Ankanams to him under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1987 and subsequently he executed an unregistered will deed dated 15.11.1988 in favour of his mother who subsequently executed a settlement deed in favour of the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that 30 Ankanams is joint family property in which he is having half share and after the death of his father a division was made in which he got half share. It is also his case that subsequently his son filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.45 of 2012 claiming a share in the joint family property against himself, his mother and the respondent herein.

6. The rival claims and the relationship of the parties have to be kept in mind. One of the points raised by Sri M. Venkata Narayana is that unless late Malakondaiah had an absolute right to sell the land in favour of his younger son, the respondent herein, the sale deed itself would become void. It is also his submission that there is nothing on record to say that the disputed property is self acquired property of late Malakondaiah. Anyhow the question whether the petitioner herein has a share in the disputed property or not or whether the sale deed executed by Malakondaiah and subsequent Will Deed executed by him in favour of his wife are valid or not have to be decided by the trial Court after full fledged trial and this Court cannot express any opinion on the said issues at this stage.

7. However, the fact remains that the petitioner and the respondent are real brothers and the son of the petitioner filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.45 of 2012 and the same is pending. It also appears that the son of the petitioner sought an interim direction not to change the physical features of the petition schedule property during the pendency of O.S. No.45 of 2012.The main purpose of granting any injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is to protect the property and to see