HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI C.R.P. No.4070 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER : 18.03.2026 Between

1. Mr.K.Servendra Goud and 5 others.

.. Petitioners And

1. Mr.Kundena Mohan Kumar and another.

.. Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“begs to file the present Civil Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court aggrieving the reversal of an injunction order dated; 21-08-2025 in C.M.A. No.7 of 2023 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge Court, at: Wanaparthy, wherein the Trial Court had rightly refused to grant injunction over the ancestors/co-parceners property vide its order dated; 19-01-2023 in I.A.No.68 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2020 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge Court, at: Wanaparthy, the present Revision Petition is preferred for the following among other”

2. Heard Mr.B.Ramulu, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Mr.T.Venkat Raju Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel representing revision petitioners that property is ancestral property. Respondents herein, without making any averment in the plaint with regard to coparcenary rights, have filed an injunction suit stating that they are in possession and peaceful enjoyment of entire property admeasuring of Acs.22.11 guntas. I.A. No.68 of 2020 in O.S.No.12 of 2020 was filed by plaintiff in the suit. Learned Trial Court, vide its order dated

19.01.2023, has held as follows:

“All the documents filed by the petitioner show that the name of Chinna Kistanna was mutated in the revenue records as per Pauthi Virasath and inheritance and after death of Chinna Kistanna, name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record as he is the legal heir of Chinna Kistanna. It is the case of the respondents that the original owner of the petition schedule property is Buraiah and he has two sons Kundena Chinnaiah and Kundena Pullaiah. As Kundena Chinnaiah is the elder son, his name was mutated in the revenue records. That Kundena Chinnaiah has legal heirs apart from father of the petitioner and so also Kundena Pullaiah has legal heirs and that all of them are coparceners and entitled to share in the petition schedule property. Even Ex.R4 shows that the respondents therein, who are the father of the petitioner herein and other legal representatives of Chinnaiah i.e., Pedda Kistanna Goud and Krishnanna Goud were shown as joint owners of the property acquired by the Government and the compensation amount was apportioned among them as per their share. Since partition suit is pending and also the petitioner is not disputing that the property originally belonged to his ancestor Chennaiah and he is also not disputed his relationship with the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the petition schedule property, which prima facie appears to be ancestral property and the respondents as coparceners.

Point is accordingly answered.”

4. Petitioners in I.A.No.68 of 2020 has filed C.M.A. No. 7 of 2023 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy. By an order dated 21.08.2025, the learned Principal District Judge, Wanaparthy, held as follows:

“ On scrutiny of the entire material placed before the court, admittedly the main suit is filed for perpetual injunction while the present I.A. for grant of temporary injunction till disposal of the main suit. The filing of the suit for partition by the defendants vide O.S.No.269 of 2021/Ex.R1 itself shows that they are not in physical possession of the petition schedule property.

Since both the parties in the present suit filed by the petitioners and the partition suit filed by the respondents are one and the same, obviously the rights and shares of both the parties will be decided in the partition suit. Since there are ample of documents to show the possession of the petitioners over the