IMPORTANT POINT
The cancellation of a gift deed and subsequent proceedings must be valid, and the applicability of relevant acts and sections should be considered in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants/respondents/defendants 1 and 2 have filed these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., assailing the Orders, dtd. 10/3/2022 in two interlocutory applications vide I.A.No.1204 of 2018 and 1205 of 2018 in O.S.No.333 of 2018 on the file of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy. The respondent/petitioner/plaintiff filed the above stated interlocutory applications before the learned XVI Additional District Judge (hereinafter be referred as trial Court) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C. for two separate relief namely temporary injunction to restrain the appellants herein (shown as respondents 1 and 2 in the interlocutory applications) from changing the physical features of the suit schedule property and also to restrain them from alienating/transferring suit "A" schedule property in favour of 3rd parties pending disposal of the main suit. The trial Court having considered the affidavit filed in support of the petition, and counter affidavit of the respondents i.e., appellants herein, allowed the interlocutory applications and granted temporary injunction against the appellants herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed two separate miscellaneous appeals, but with the same contentions. The grounds on which the appeals are filed are common. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff is also common in both the appeals. Therefore, a common order would suffice to dispose both the appeals.

2. The brief facts of the case of the parties before the trial Court is quite necessary for disposal of these two appeals. The 1st appellant Smt. Sharada Tiwari is mother of 2nd appellant as well as the respondent. The respondent is the petitioner, filed the above stated interlocutory applications with a specific plea that he is owner of "A" schedule property by virtue of gift settlement deed vide document No.282 of 2008 executed by the 1st appellant which was attested by the 2nd appellant. The respondent has claimed before the trial Court that subsequent to the execution of gift settlement deed through which he got the schedule property both the appellants herein developed animosity against him. They started harassing the wife of the respondent for additional dowry. Therefore, the wife of respondent lodged a report before police, Ramgopalpet on 22/8/2013. Therefore, the appellants herein started making false affidavits creating false documents, fabricating false evidence to make wrongful gains to themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the respondent. The respondent has further claimed in the affidavit filed before the trial Court that the appellants herein by manipulating the statutory provisions, foisted a false case against him and obtained an order from the Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Revenue Division of Hyderabad District vide proceedings No.B/1795/2014, dtd. 12/1/2015. The 1st appellant is wife of a retired Government employee, thereby drawing a sum of Rs.15,256.00 per month towards family pension through the bank account. The 2nd appellant got himself enrolled as an Advocate by misrepresentation of facts, only to avail welfare fund and incidental benefits, without any intention to pursue the profession.

3. The respondent further claimed before the trial Court that having obtained an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer by making false representation, started attempts to deprive the legitimate rights of the respondent over the schedule property. He has claimed that he has got prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favour. If the appellants herein were allowed, there is a chance of their alienating property to 3rd parties and a chance of appellants changing the physical features of the property, thereby sought for temporary injunction to restrain the appellants herein from changing the nature of the property and also from alienating the property to 3rd parties.

4. The appellants herein oppose