THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA C.M.A. No.162 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2025 in I.A. No.894 of 2024 in O.S. No.26 of

2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Siddipet.

3. The appellants herein are the respondents in the underlying interlocutory application and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit.

4. The 1^st respondent herein had filed the subject suit for partition of the suit schedule properties wherein the respondent had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying the Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants in the suit from alienating, mortgaging, creating charge, executing any type of conveyance deeds in favour of third parties.

5. The appellants contend that the Court below erred in granting the order of injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property without appreciating that the appellants herein are in possession of the suit schedule property having got the said property under gift deed executed by their father and, as such, the respondent cannot seek for partition of the suit schedule property much less is entitled for being granted with injunction.

6. The appellants contend that the Court below without appreciating the aforesaid fact had granted injunction in favour of the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, this appeal.

7. We have noted the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the plaint as filed by the respondent/plaintiff would show that she is the daughter of V. Dayanand and the sister of appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein and daughter of the 3^rd appellant. Further, the respondent herein had filed the subject suit for partition of the suit schedule property claiming that the said property belonged to her father and thus, is liable to be partitioned and as such the appellants herein cannot deal with the suit schedule property as their exclusive property by excluding the respondent No.1 herein.

9. The Court below having regard to the relief sought for in the suit and considering the fact that if the appellants herein are allowed to deal with the property, the suit claim itself would be defeated, had granted the order of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. The Court below while arrving at the aforesaid conclusion had noted that the documents produced by both the parties show that late V. Dayanand i.e, the father of the respondents/appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein, husband of appellant No.3 had acquired the said property from his father. The Court below further noted that whether the respondent herein has share in those properties or not will have to be decided after full-fledged trial and since the property being claimed by the appellant being an ancestral property, had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent herein had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in her favour for grant of injunction.

10. The said finding of the Court below in the considered view of this Court cannot be said either with suffering from error or infirmity or perversity, since the suit schedule property is not a self-acquired property of the father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and husband of appellant No.3 herein, for it to be gifted by him during his life time in their favour. Further, it is also to be noted that if the said order of the Court below is vacated and the appellants herein are allowed to deal with the suit schedule property, nothing would remain by the time the suit claim of the respondent No.1 herein is adjudicated.

11. For the said reason also this Court is of the view that the order of the Court below does not call for any interference.

12. Accordingly, the CMA fails and is dismissed. No cos