IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the trial court to consider the objections raised by the appellants and give a clear finding on the status of the suit schedule property, as well as the need to consider the right of the plaintiffs to file the suit in a representative capacity and the application filed by the appellants for revoking the leave granted to the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant who is 2nd respondent in I.A.No.667 of 2018 and 2nd defendant in O.S.No.987 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the Order of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the above referred interlocutory application, dtd. 2/11/2021 whereunder the trial Court directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/2nd respondent/defendant No.2 filed this appeal on the following grounds.

2. The trial Court without following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts' wherein grant of status quo was deprecated passed the impugned order without defining the present state of suit schedule property. The trial Court failed to consider the certified copies of cancellation deed which was registered as document No.297 of 2006, dtd. 30/1/2006 where under the gift deed executed in favor of Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, bearing document No.3125 of 2004 was cancelled and as the said cancellation was not challenged by any party, much less the trusties of the said Trust, the same has become final, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, does not lie.

3. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court failed to consider the cancellation of the said deed, thereby failed to consider the relevant documents for the purpose of determining the question in the suit, amounts to misreading of the evidence. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents are only passersby and they have no right, title or interest or locus standi to file the suit. They do not come under the definition of interested persons as defined in Sec. 92 of C.P.C. nor can they claim any interest in the affairs of the said Trust. They never worked for the Trust for the welfare nor have they participated in the Trust meetings. Thereby, they are totally strangers. As such, the suit filed by the respondents is not sustainable under law. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents have no prima facie case. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants as the schedule "A" property is under construction and in possession of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. If, those defendants are injected from alienating or modification of the property, it will cause irreparable loss when compared with the case of respondent/plaintiff.

4. The appellants further claimed that the Court below failed to consider the property is situated at Somajiguda. The respondents/plaintiffs claims to be residents of Banjara Hills, Agapura, Nampally, Hyderabad, thereby they are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they were never the trusties of Trust and they never take any part in the affairs of the Trust. Therefore, they cannot maintain the suit before the trial Court. They have also claimed that 2nd respondent is owner of the property by virtue of an oral gift given by Smt. Subhani Begum on 8/8/2004 and thereafter, respondent No.2 has executed a registered gift in favour of respondent No.8 under document No.655 of 2014, dtd. 31/1/2014 and by virtue of a cancellation deed, dtd. 30/1/2006, the gift deed executed in favour of the 1st respondent/Trust by Smt. Subhani Begum came to be cancelled and that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 who are trusties of 1st respondent never questioned the cancellation of gift deed and they remained ex parte in the main suit, in as much as the plaintiff himself not pressed the interlocutory application against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and proceeded against the other respondents. They have also claimed that the trial Court without passing any orders in I.A.No.1153 of 2021 filed for revoking the leave granted in I.A.No.440 of 2017 passed orders in I.A.No.667 of 2018 which is not correct and not according to the law. They have also claimed that the order of the trial Court is based on conj