A party cannot claim an injunction against the real owner of property, and the classification of property as ancestral or self-acquired must await trial.

JUDGMENT :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

Since, the issues involved in these CMAs are one and the same and they are being disposed of this common judgment.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.394 and 395 are filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.06.2024 passed in I.A. No.283 of 2022 and I.A. No.101 of 2022 in O.S. No.63 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar (for short ‘the trial Court’).

3. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory applications and plaintiff in the suit filed by her for Partition and Separate Possession against the respondents herein.

4. The appellant filed the underlying interlocutory applications i.e., I.A. No.283 of 2022 seeking ad-interim injunction against respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 from alienating the subject properties to third parties, and I.A No.101 of 2022 to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from changing or altering the nature of the subject properties, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’).

5. It is the case of the appellant in brief that, she had filed a suit for Partition and Separate Possession under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of CPC seeking decree of partition by dividing the subject properties and also to declare 1/3^rd share each to her and respondent Nos.1 and 3 and further to declare the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2007, Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016, Registered Sale Deed dated 06.04.2021, Registered Sale Deed dated 25.06.2021 and Ratification Deed dated 01.09.2021 as null and void.

6. The appellant contends that, she is the elder daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 is the sister of the appellant, respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent Nos.3, and respondent No. 5 is the agreement holder vide Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016.

7. Appellant further contends that, the respondent No.1 is the Karta of the joint family, holding patta and possession of land in Sy.No. 10 to an extent of Ac 1-36 gts; Sy.No.11 to an extent of Ac 0.36gts; Sy.No.15 to an extent of Ac 0.35 gts; Sy.No.45/AA to an extent of Ac 1.05 gts; Sy.No.325/3 to an extent of Ac 0.28 gts; Sy.No. 329 to an extent of Ac 3.29 gts; Sy.No. 356 to an extent of Ac 0.23 gts; Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac 0.07 gts; Sy.No. 358 to an extent of Ac 0.09 gts; Sy.No. 364 to an extent ofAc1.33 gts; Sy.No. 367 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts; Sy.No. 368 to an extent of Ac. 0.06 gts; Sy.No. 369 to an extent of Ac. 0.21 gts; Sy.No. 370 to an extent of Ac. 0.10 gts; Sy.No. 374 to an extent of Ac. 0.39 gts at Shankarpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also holding patta for land in Sy.No.382 to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts at Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District in all totaling to an extent of Ac 23.29 gts.

8. It is contended that, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.17 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, the respondent No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2021 transferring portions of the land in Sy.No.10/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-25 gts, Sy.No.11/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-12 gts, Sy.No.15/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-13 gts, and Sy.No.374/AA admeasuring Ac 0-18 gts totaling to Ac. 1-28 gts in favour of respondent No.3, with a malafide intention to deprive the appellant of her rightful share in the proper