JUDGMENT:

Plaintiffs in the suit filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. The appellants call in question order dated 24.03.2022 of learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.1028 of 2018 in O.S.No.387 of 2018. By that order, the prayer for temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiffs was denied. Urging that the cause espoused before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs deserve an interim injunction, the appellants have presented this civil miscellaneous appeal. Before adverting to the grounds urged here and the arguments advanced on both sides, a few facts are required to be noticed:

2. A flat in the ground floor bearing No.1B in Raga Sudha Residency which is a multistoried apartment in 2nd lane, Pandaripuram in Guntur City is the property in dispute. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.387 of 2018 as against the defendants for a declaration that a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2016 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 is null and void and does not bind the plaintiffs and they also sought for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.4 to 6 from entering into the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs.

3. The said claim in the suit is based on the following facts:

Sri Rama Krishna Rao and Smt. P.Lalitha Kumari are Hindu spouses to each other. They have three sons and one daughter. One son and one daughter are the plaintiffs. Mother- Lalitha Kumari and two of her sons are arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. It is stated that property belonged to late Sri Rama Krishna Rao and on his death succession operated and his wife and four children are legal heirs and each one is entitled to 1/5th share in the property. Seeking for partition of properties so devolved on them earlier O.S.No.60 of 2018 was filed and the same is still pending. During the pendency of that suit, the suit for declaration and consequential injunction in O.S.No.387 of 2018 was filed. One of the items of property is a piece of land in an extent of 433.1/3 square yards. These sharers and other relations jointly entered into a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 09.03.2011 with the developers, namely, M/s. S.S.V. Constructions. This agreement contains references as to allotment of definite flats to the land owners and it also mentions about definite flats to the developers. It is on this premise the plaintiffs state that the plaint schedule property belonged to all the five sharers, but the mother/defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants sold out this plaint schedule flat to defendant Nos.4 and 5 under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2016. This was done without consent or knowledge of plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs have been living in United States of America. The flats were constructed and possession of them were delivered and with the permission of sharers, defendant No.2 is living in that plaint schedule flat. The above referred sale deed is invalid since all the sharers did not join the conveyance. Therefore, the suit is filed for declaration that the said sale deed is void and does not bind the plaintiffs. It is further averred that defendant Nos.4 and 5 colluded with a bank/6th defendant and they are trying to create a collusive mortgage and see that the rights of the plaintiffs are defeated. It is in those circumstances, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1028 of 2018 in O.S.No.387 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.4 to 6 and their men from entering into the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are some of the sharers, did not put up contest and proceedings went ex-parte as against them. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed their counter denying the petition mentioned allegations. Defendant No.6/Union Bank of I