Court affirmed that in interlocutory applications for injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience, reinforcing the discretion of trial courts in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff in rejecting I.A.No.74 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed under Order XXXIV Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining 5^th respondent/ 5^th defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, by order, dated 03.10.2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Plaintiff, husband of 1^st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4 are brothers and 5^th defendant being subsequent purchaser from 3^rd defendant are contesting O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, instituted for partition and separate possession. It is claimed that initially suit schedule property belonged to one Sri Gundu Rao, grandfather of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. He was succeeded by three sons, and later one of the son settled and his share was taken out of joint family thereby only two sons viz., M. K.Gopala Rao and M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao continued to hold properties jointly. After death of both brothers, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 became successors thereby claiming half of the share, Suit came to be instituted for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property.

(b) The said case of plaintiff came to be opposed by filing written statement interalia stating that already there was a partition amongst three sons of Gundu Rao on 04.02.1963 and the same were divided into three schedules – first schedule fell to the share of plaintiff’s father, second schedule fell to the share of father of defendants 2 to 4 and third schedule fell to the share of third brother. Thereafter, respective parties are in possession and enjoyment, therefore, denied that they still continued to be joint family property susceptible for partition. The 5^th defendant being a bona fide purchaser, pleaded that the property was acquired from the share which fell to the family of M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao. Initially, the trial Court granted ad interim injunction on 20.06.2014, later, eventually the same was challenged by 5^th respondent purchaser in C.M.A.No.907 of 2015 before this Court. By order, dated 22.06.2016, the said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the injunction granted and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to parties and receiving additional material. Accordingly, additional documents came to be filed by both appellant/ petitioner as well as respondents. After appreciating the respective pleadings and the documents exhibited, trial Court ultimately rejected the prayer in the I.A. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

-

4. Heard Sri P.Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court erred in appreciating that there was no partition prior to and suit schedule property all through remained to be joint property between brothers viz., M.K. Ganga Rao and M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao, ignoring the said aspect, the trial Court has rejected the I.A. 5^th respondent being a purchaser, there is every likelihood of altering the nature of property and also alienating the same and in case appellant succeeds in the Suit, if any third party interests are created, it will be difficult to undo and restore the rights so accrued.

-

6. None appeared for the respondents to refute the aforesaid submissions.

7. Perused the record and considered the subm