JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC against the order and decree dated 03.08.2022 in I.A.No.71 of 2022 in A.S.No.67 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam at Chodavaram.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff suit O.S.No.119 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, which was filed against the respondents seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

3. Plaintiff pleaded that originally the property belonged to Ravada people of Bathivanipalem, hamlet of Kinthada, K.Kotapadu Mandal; that Ravada people partitioned joint family properties under a registered family partition deed dated 19.02.2011 and in the said partition, plaint schedule property, which has been shown as ‘B’ schedule fell to the share of 2nd Party, the vendor of plaintiff; that A schedule property fell to the share of other party i.e. vendor of 5th defendant; that plaintiff purchased the schedule property from Ravada Venkata Ramana Murthy and two others under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2016 and name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records; that plaintiff made application for approval of construction of house before the Gram Pancahyat; that defendants approached the plaintiff and requested to sell the schedule property, however, plaintiff refused to sell; that on 10.07.2016 defendants and their henchmen came to schedule property and obstructed the plaintiff from proceeding with construction and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, suit was filed.

4. 10th Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1, 2 and 9.

5. 5th Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that oral partition took place in the year 1977 among the family members of Ravada Thammunaidu and Yarranna and in the said partition land covered by S.No.209/18 an extent of Ac.0.39 cents locally called as Pasalamma Gavuru fell to the share of Thammunaidu; that in suit O.S.No.173 of 1983, Thammunaidu was asserted as 1st defendant and his rights over the plaint schedule property was upheld and the same was confirmed by the High Court in S.A.No.422 of 1996; that Thammunaidu himself and on behalf of minor son Nageswara Rao along with other son Venkata Ramana, sold the plaint schedule property to the 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.1997 and delivered possession and since then, 5th defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property; that 5th defendant constructed thatched house and has been living there; that Gram Panchayat assessed the house for tax vide Assessment No.913 and another Assessment No.1027; that plaintiff, husband of Sarpanch tried to occupy the schedule property and the sale deed dated 13.06.2016 is a collusive document and eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Pending the suit, I.A.No.332 of 2016 was filed for grant of ad interim injunction. Initially, trial Court granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering the possession of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and subsequently, the same was made absolute on 18.11.2017. Temporary interim injunction continued till the disposal of suit. Trial Court by judgment and decree dated

30.06.2022, dismissed the suit on merits.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.67 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam at Chodavaram. In the appeal, appellant filed I.A.No.71 of 2022 seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from raising any constructions in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of appeal. Initially, the Appellate Court granted ad interim injunction on 15.07.2022 and after filing of counter, I.A.No.71 of 2022 was dismissed with certain observations. Assailin