JUDGMENT :

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, challenging the order, dated 03.08.2022, passed in I.A.No.1403 of 2021 in O.S.No.315 of 2021 by the III Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, whereby, the subject I.A.No.1403 of 2021 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 & 17/defendant Nos.1 & 17 from carrying out any development work in petition schedule A and B properties, pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri G.Kalyana Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri Harender Pershad, learned counsel representing Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 17/defendant Nos.1 & 17 and perused the record.

3. For convenience of discussion, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the subject I.A.No.1403 of 2021 before the Court below.

4. The petitioners filed the subject suit in O.S.No.315 of 2021 before the Court below against the respondents seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit schedule A and B properties. In the said suit, the petitioners filed the subject I.A.No.1403 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 & 17 from carrying out any development work in the petition schedule A and B properties, pending disposal of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order, dated 03.08.2022, which led to filing of this appeal by the petitioners.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners would contend that the Court below erred in holding that the petitioners failed to establish prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is not in their favour. The entire claim of the respondent Nos.1 & 17 is based on the agreement of sale derived from the Power of Attorney holder of the husband of petitioner No.1. However, as on the date of execution of sale deed basing upon such GPA, the husband of the petitioner No.1 died and as such, the agency came to an end. Even otherwise, said unregistered agreement of sale is not a valid document and no claim can be made basing upon the same. The suit schedule property is a joint family property and it is acquired by the family of the appellants, including the husband of appellant No.1, by virtue of succession/inheritance from their ancestors. Therefore, the husband of appellant No.1 cannot execute any document in respect of suit schedule property. The joint family of the appellants filed a partition suit in O.S.No.535 of 1996 seeking partition in respect of Acs.5.20 guntas and in the said suit, the husband of the appellant No.1 was arrayed as defendant No.5 and after his death, the appellants/petitioners were impleaded as respondent Nos.21 to 24. The said suit was decreed dividing the property into 24 equal shares and each family was awarded Acs.0-09 guntas of land. The husband of appellant No.1 got 0.09 guntas and appellant Nos.2 to 4 got 1/6th share, i.e., 0.15 guntas by virtue of the said preliminary decree. Basing upon the said preliminary decree, final decree was passed and the same was engrossed on 11.05.2017. Pending the subject suit, basing on the GPA, a sale deed was executed, even though the executant of sale deed was one of the defendants in O.S.No.535 of 1996. Under the guise of sale deed, the respondent Nos.2 to 16 sold the property to respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 claims to have assigned the land to respondent No.17 for the purpose of development. The Court below erred in holding that already there is an agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in the year 1994 by Narasimulu and his brothers. Further, the finding of the Court below that the death of husband of appellant No.1 will