Point of Law: A decree would be binding on the parties to the suit and not on third party.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri. K.H.V. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the material on record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 104 r/w. Order 43 (1)(r) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order, dated 27.12.2019, on the file of III Additional District Judge, Guntur in I.A. No. 752 of 2016 in O.S. No. 281 of 2016, by which their application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected.

3. The appellants herein filed O.S. No. 281 of 2016 [Bhimavarapu Nageswaramma and Others vs. Bommu Sivareddy and Others] for partition of Aschedule items of immovable properties and for mesne profits and for declaration of title over B-schedule immovable property and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit was instituted on 27.07.2016. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 752 of 2016 for grant of temporary injunction was also filed with respect to B-schedule property.

4. The undisputed part of the case is that plaint B-schedule property originally belonged to Mr. Bommu Panakala Reddy. Mr. Panakala Reddy firstly married Venkata Subbamma and to them the 1st appellant-B. Nageswaramma was born. On the death of Venkata Subbamma, the first wife, Mr. Panakala Reddy married Venkayamma and out of that wedlock, the 1st respondent-B. Sivareddy was born. The further case of the appellants herein is that marriage of the 1st appellant-B. Nageswaramma was solemnized by her father Mr. Panakala Reddy in the year 1966 and at that time, towards pasupukumkuma, he had given B-schedule property to her. The 1st appellant thereafter executed registered gift deed, Ex.P2, dated 08.06.2007, in favour of her children, i.e. 2nd and 3rd appellants herein. Since 1966 the 1st appellant was in possession of B-schedule property and under the gift deed, Ex.P2, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 have been in possession of B-schedule property. The appellants, in order to show the line of possession from B.Nageswaramma and thereafter to B. Venkata Siva Reddy and B. Srinivasa Reddy, filed Ex.P12-adangal pahani dated 30.04.2016, Ex.P13-1B namuna ROR dated 30.04.2016 in favour 2nd appellant, Ex.P14-1B namuna ROR dated 30.04.2016 in favour of 3rd appellant and in view of these documents, the appellants contended that they were in possession of plaint B-schedule property.

5. The appellants/plaintiffs/petitioners in I.A. No. 752 of 2016 in O.S. No. 281 of 2016 prayed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their people from in any way interfering with their peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint B-schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

6. Plaint B-schedule property consists of the following property:

B-SCHEDULE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS

Guntur District, Pedakakani Sub-District, Kaza village and Gram Panchayath, an extent of Ac. 0.39 cents, D. No. 491/2 and an extent of Ac. 0.30 cents in D. No. 491/4 making a total of Ac. 0.69 cents of dry land bounded by:

7. The present respondent No. 3-Eeda Prabhakara Reddy, defendant No. 3 before the court below, filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the appellants and contended that the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 B. Sivareddy and B. Sankarareddy respectively, along with Smt. B. Venkayamma, mother of B. Sivareddy, made him to believe that they succeeded the plaint B-schedule property on intestate death of B.Panakala Reddy on 26.11.1970 and since then they have been enjoying the property as absolute owners and at the family oral partition, B-schedule property fell to the share of B. Venkayamma and sh