COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)

We have heard Mr. B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in C.M.A.No.287 of 2024 and respondents in C.M.A.No.311 of 2024 and Mr. K.V. Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.311 of 2024 and respondent in C.M.A.No.287 of 2024.

2. Challenging the decree and orders dated 22.03.2024 in I.A.Nos.681 of 2019 and 1257 of 2021 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendants filed these miscellaneous appeals i.e. C.M.A.Nos.311 of 2024 and

287 of 2024 respectively.

3. Before the trial Court, Interlocutory Application No.681 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff with a prayer to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents, his agents or any other person claiming through or under him from alienating or creating any charge over the petition schedule property i.e. House bearing No.9-4-84/152 and 152/2 on plot No.152 admeasuring 256 square yards consisting of ground, first and second floor situated at Berban, Kakatiya Nagar, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad. Nonetheless again the petitioner/plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application No.1257 of 2021 with the self same prayer. The trial Court vide impugned orders has allowed and granted temporary injunction as prayed for in I.A.No.1257 of 2021 and dismissed the prayer in I.A.No.681 of 2019.

4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.681 of 2019, the petitioner/plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.311 of 2024 and dissatisfied by the order of temporary injunction, the respondents 1 and

2/defendants filed C.M.A.No.287 of 2024.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

6. Briefly stated the petitioner’s case is that the petition schedule property was acquired by her by virtue of registered sale deed and after obtaining necessary permissions got constructed the house. While so, after the demise of her husband by committing suicide, she was in depression and her son/respondent No.1 got prepared general power of attorney (GPA) make believe her that it is required for obtaining death certificate of her husband. Thereafter, behind her back the respondent No.1 had executed registered sale deed in the name of his wife/respondent No.2. On cognizance of such act, when the petitioner questioned, the respondent No.1 refused for cancellation of the GPA and the consequent sale deed and threatened to dispossess her from the petition schedule property. Thus the petitioner is constrained to file suit for cancellation of GPA and registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. Subsequently on knowledge that the respondent No.2 is making efforts to sell away the petition schedule property filed the petitions for granting injunction pendente lite to secure her interest.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is well learned woman and after the death of her husband while going to her daughter in USA voluntarily executed the GPA giving all the rights including to sell the petition schedule property, whereupon the payment of valid sale consideration, the respondent No.2 had purchased the property and the same is evident even by bank transactions. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is bona fide purchaser and on ill counselling by other children the petitioner has now turned around and without any acceptable reason created this litigation. However, once the petitioner had legally parted her rights and the title has been transmitted to the respondent No.2 under valid sale deed by the GPA, granting injunction would amount to restraining the title holder from enjoyment of the property. Thus prayed for intervention and to set aside the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1257 of 2021.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court on threadbare discussion had accepted a positive case in favour of the peti