THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.628 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 passed by the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed an application vide I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, against the appellants/defendants, for granting of ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants/defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition ‘B’ schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the evidence on record, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents therein/appellants preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants mainly contended that respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession, as such the question of granting injunction in their favour does not arise. The trial Court has wrongly concluded the entries made in the revenue records as family division (Kutumba Vibhajana) under Ex.P75. He also contended that respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded themselves that suit schedule properties are not partitioned in the plaint and Ex.R5, but the trial Court wrongly concluded the same. Moreover, the entries made in Exs.P53 to P65 and Ex.P75 are misunderstood. The trial Court passed the Order without going through Exs.R1 to R8, as such it is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the trial Court passed the injunction Order against the co-owner. The trial Court erroneously gave the finding that respondents/plaintiffs are in separate possession of the suit schedule ‘B’ property, pending disposal of the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the impugned Order passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

5. Parties herein are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for the sake of convenience.

6. Initially, plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.364 of 2024, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by demarcating their entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts including an extent of Acs.8 – 25 gts (mentioned as suit – B Schedule property) out of Acs.14 – 14 gts and also requested the Court to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit B-Schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have filed an application vide I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B-Schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Plaintiffs No.1 to 19 are represented by their GPA holder Bhumireddy Venkata Malikarjuna Reddy, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 are represented by their GPA holder M/s.Ashoka League Projects and plaintiffs No.20 to 21 and 32 to 35 are represented in their individual capacity. Defendants No.2 and 3 are son and wife of defendant No.1. The family pedigree is illustrated as follows:

FAMILY PEDIGREE (Acs.14 – 14 gts.)

KISTA REDDY (Acs.7 – 07 gts) CHENNA REDDY (Acs.7 – 07 gts)

CHANDRA REDDY RAM REDDY SHARAVA REDDY SANGA REDDY (Died issueless in 1978) (Died in 1980)

Kista Srinivas Pratap Bal Ram Reddy Reddy Reddy Reddy Gopal Reddy Yadi Reddy Chandra Reddy Ashok Rama Chandra Reddy Reddy (Sold vide Sale Deed Doct.No.2018/1997 Bal. Ac.0 – 24 gts is sold to (39/2007 dt.05.10.2006)

Dated:24.07.1997 – Acs.2 – 39 gts)

L.Amrutha L.Kistamma L.Sulochana L.Sanjeev L.Arjun Reddy w/o.Yadi Reddy w/o.Gopal Reddy w/o.Chandra Reddy s/o.Yadi Redd