The court upheld the grant of a temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, filed for division of suit schedule properties into 28 equal shares and to allot7/28^th share to the plaintiffs and for delivery of possession.

3. This appeal challenges the grant of temporary injunction in I.A.No.35 of 2023 in the suit directing the appellant defendants not to alienate the "A‟ schedule plaint properties to third parties till the disposal of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs- respondents in brief is that one Syed Sab was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. He had three (3) daughters namely Noorunissa, Pyaribi and Rahamathbi. He had two (2) sons namely Syed Abdulla and Syed Ghouse. The plaintiffs are the children of the late daughters namely Pyaribi and Rahamathbi. The defendants are the sons of Syed Sab; their children; the children of Noorunissa the deceased first daughter of Syed Sab; the daughter in law of late Rahamathbi widow of deceased son Zakir and their children. Plaintiffs‟ further case is that Syed Sab was the original owner, who purchased item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint "A‟ schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1945 from one Bakshu Saheb and he also acquired Item No.3 and all the valuable in "B‟ schedule property. After the death of Syed Sab, the defendants 1 and 2, sons of Syed Sab and all the plaintiffs were jointly enjoying the suit schedule properties in which they were entitled to get their respective 7/28^th shares.

5. The case of the defendants/appellants in brief is that the defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and they had already given certain properties to their sisters, who sold the properties given to them to third parties. There is no joint family and no joint possession or enjoyment. Syed Sab during his lifetime made an oral gift dated 24.11.1969 wherein the Southern side half share in Sy.No.137/2 in an extent of Ac.2.03½ cents was given to the 1^st defendant and the Northern side half share for the same extent in Sy.No.137/2 was given to the 2^nd defendant. The possession was delivered and they had accepted the gift. Their names were mutated in the revenue records. Since then and onwards defendants 1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant also purchased Ac.0-86 land in Sy.No.35, of No.59 Nerripalli village under registered sale deed dated 14.06.1976. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.0.22 cents was subsequently shown as Sy.No.134/3C. The pattadar passbook and the title deed were also issued in favour of the 1^st defendant. They submitted that the plaintiffs had no right to claim partition or even temporary injunction. They had no prima facie case. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

6. In support of their respective cases, the plaintiffs filed the documents Exs.P.1 to P.25 and the respondents filed Exs.R.1 to R.22 as mentioned in detail in the impugned order and also brought on record vide memo dated 17.09.2004 by the appellants.

7. The learned court of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, on consideration of the material filed before it Exs.P.1 to P.25 filed by the plaintiffs and Exs.R.1 to R.22 filed by the defendants, observed that it was undisputed that the plaint schedule property was the property acquired by Syed Sab. The relationship of the parties to Syed Sab was also undisputed. They were in joint possession and enjoyment. The defendants 1 and 2 (appellants 1 and 2) were managing the properties also on behalf of others. The plaintiffs had filed 25 documents including Ex.P.1 the certified copy of the sale deed in the name of Syed Sab, and Ex.P.2 to P.4 the certified extract of the revenue records. It