Fraud must be specifically pleaded; actions taken years after an event can amount to a bar by limitation. Courts dismiss vexatious litigations that abuse processes.

JUDGMENT :

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024 dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., for granting ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating, transferring or otherwise creating any charge in favour of third parties over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the main suit filed for partition and separate possession and for declaration of documents i.e. (i) registered sale deed dated 14.08.1985 bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 (ii) registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2004 bearing Doc.No.8247/2004 and (iii) registered sale deed dated 27.03.2006 bearing Doc.No.4480/2006 as null, void and not binding on appellants/plaintiffs.

3. Pending consideration of the suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.423 of 2024 contending that the appellant No.1 is one of the sharers in the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.108 situated at Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal (earlier Rajendranagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District. It is contended that appellant No.2 has entered into an Agreement with the appellant No.1.

4. It is further contended by the appellant No.1 that originally her father i.e. late Kistaiah, out of his hard earned money and by cultivating the lands on lease from different land owners, had purchased the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.108 from Gadda Laxmaiah under registered sale deed dated 11.02.1981 vide Doc.No.559/1981 in the name of his wife Smt.Pastham Durgamma. After the death of Kistaiah, his wife Durgamma along with their children viz., appellant No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2, Arjun and Pochamma were jointly cultivating the schedule land with peaceful possession and enjoyment.

5. It is further contended that after the death of late Kistaiah, Durgamma along with her three sons viz., respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Arjun jointly alienated the suit schedule property to third parties i.e. respondent No.3 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 dated 14.08.1985 behind the backs of appellant No.1 herein and her sister Pochamma by suppressing the fact that appellant No.1 herein and her sister Pochamma are also legitimate shareholders, being legal heirs of late Kistaiah, and that the respondent No.3 without knowing all these facts, purchased the schedule property. Subsequently, sister and brother of appellant No.1 viz., Pochamma and Arjun died issueless. Mother of appellant No.1 Pastham Durgammma also died on 10.11.2019.

6. It is contended by appellant No.1 that subsequent to purchase of schedule property by respondent No.3 along with his family members i.e. respondent No.4 to 7, had alienated the land admeasuring Ac.1.35 gts in Sy.No.108/A in favour of respondent No.8 vide AGPA bearing Doc.No.8247/2004 dated 19.10.2004. Thereafter, respondent No.3 to 7 represented by their GPA Holder i.e. respondent No.8 executed a sale deed vide Doc.No.4480/2006 dated 27.03.2006 in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.35 gts in Sy.No.108/A out of the suit schedule property.

7. It is further contended that the sons of late Gadda Laxmaiah, in collusion with Pastham Durgamma executed a Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.1973/2006 dt.13.02.2006 in favour of Pastham Durgamma confirming the validity a