JUDGMENT :

(A.V. Sesha Sai, J.)

1. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Piler is the appellant in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

2. In the present appeal, challenge is to the order, dated 07.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge in I.A.No.62 of 2021, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, are the daughter and son of the first defendant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the first defendant. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the above said suit for the following reliefs:

“a) To divide the plaint schedule properties between the plaintiffs and defendants into five equal shares and out of the same to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs by taking good and bad of the soil into consideration and put the plaintiffs in separate possession of the same, within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court, failing which, the same be done through process of law.

b) Award the costs of the suit, and

c) pass such other or further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice”.

3. Along with the plaint, respondents 1 and 2 herein also filed I.A.No.62 of 2021 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying the trial Court to grant injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. Resisting the said application, first defendant-appellant herein filed counter. The learned Judge, by way of the order under challenge in the instant appeal, allowed the said application, granting temporary injunction, restraining the defendant, from alienating the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit. Hence, the present appeal by the first defendant under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

4. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A.P.Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant on record, and Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

5. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the order passed by the learned Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; that in the absence of any proof as to the nature of jointness of the plaint schedule properties shown by the plaintiffs, learned Judge grossly erred in granting the relief of injunction; that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of triple requirements namely: 1) prima facie case; 2) balance of convenience; and 3) irreparable loss, as such, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff; that the wife and the daughter of the first defendant already instituted several suits, wherein no interim orders were passed; that the order of the trial Court is completely bereft of any valid reasons for arriving at the conclusions; to bolster his submissions and contentions, learned Senior Counsel takes support of the following judgments :

1.) (2003) 10 SCC 310

2.) (2016) 4 SCC 68

3.) AIR 1969 SC 1076.

6. Per contra, emphatically supporting the impugned order of injunction, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 contends that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the questioned order and, in view of the same, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC is impermissible; that the learned Judge, on a careful and meticulous analysis of the material available on record, while recording valid reasons, granted injunction; that the plaintiffs have categorically pleaded as regards the nature of the property as joint family properties; that the children by their birth become coparc