S. Ravi Kumar, J.

This appeal is preferred against order dated 23-04-2016 in I.A.No.1180/2015 in O.S.No.265/2015 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Gutnur.

2. Appellants herein are defendants 4 to 6 and respondents 1 & 2 herein are plaintiffs and respondents 3 to 12 are the other defendants in the suit. Parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit for convenience and better understanding.

3. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.265/2015 for partition of plaint schedule properties into 15 equal shares and allot one such share to each plaintiffs with separate possession free from obstructions by meets and bounds. In that suit, they filed I.A.No.1180/2015 seeking temporary injunction to restrain defendants 4 to 8, their men and followers from making any constructions in item No.1 of plaint schedule property or in any way altering nature of plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The application was resisted by defendants 4 to 6 mainly on the ground that plaint schedule properties were orally partitioned in the year 1970 and as per said oral partition, plaintiffs & third defendant have sold out their share of properties in the year 2003 in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property and that item No.2 of plaint schedule property is the absolute property of Chinna Raghavaiah. They also contended that item No.1 of plaint schedule property was given for development and in spite of publication calling for objections, nobody came forward as 3 such the developers obtained building approval and the plaintiffs are aware of all these facts and the suit is filed only to stop the construction in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. On a consideration of documents filed on behalf of both parties, trial Court granted temporary injunction by order dated 30-1-2010 on 26-08- 2015 restraining defendants 4 to 6 from making any constructions from item No.1 of plaint schedule property or in any way altering the nature of plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit and that order was challenged before this Court in CMA No.663/2015. This Court suspended the said temporary injunction by order dated 30-10-2010 on giving undertaking by defendants 4 to 6 that they will not claim any equities, in case of success of plaintiffs in the suit. As the Court below has not considered Exs. R1 to R3 relied on by defendants 4 to 6 this Court remanded the case by directing Court below to consider those documents and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible with further directed that defendants 4 to 6 shall give un-conditional undertaking. After remand, the trial Court, after considering documents Exs.R1 to R3, allowed the application confirming the earlier order. Aggrieved by which, present appeal is preferred.

4. Advocate for appellants submitted that item No.1 of plaint schedule property is Ac.0-32 cents of land in D.No.200/B of Ankireddypalem Village, Ankireddypalem Gram Panchyat, Nallapadu Sub-Division, Gutnur District. He submitted that it is specific case of plaintiffs that this item No.1 of plaint schedule property is part of Ac.1-27 cents and that plaintiffs' grand father P. Ramaiah @ Ramulu is the original owner and that he inherited the same along with other items through a registered gift deed dated 16-04-1946 executed by D. Nagaratnamma. He submitted that the said Ramulu died in the year 1976 leaving his two sons Pedda Raghavaiah & Chinna Raghavaiah. He submitted that plaintiffs are the children of Pedda Raghavaiah who predeceased Ramulu in the year 1970 and Chinna Raghavaiah died in 1996. He submitted that according to plaintiffs, plaintiffs and defendants are coparceners and in joint possession of plaint schedule properties but according to defendants 4 to 6, all the properties of Ramulu were partitioned in the year 1970 between the families of Pedda Raghavaiah and Chinna Ragahavaiah, and the suit schedule properties are absolute properties of defendants 4 to 6.