THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.Nos.777, 779 and 784 of 2009 Common Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since all these appeals arise out of the common order passed in the interlocutory applications, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in C.M.A.Nos.777 and 779 of 2009. 3. The appellant in all these appeals is the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2. He states that his grand father late Venkata Ranga Reddy bequeathed the plaint-A schedule house in his favour under the guardianship of his mother-respondent No.1 on 15.08.1971 and another portion of the said house to his second son late Laxma Reddy under separate will deeds executed in the presence of his daughters, by name, Sukanya Devi and Sulochana Devi. He states that plaint-A schedule property was initially used as residence and thereafter, his parents leased out a portion of it to the Divisional Engineer, APSEB. The appellant further states that his late grand father had gifted the plaint-B schedule property to his younger unmarried daughter Smt. Sukanya Devi, who after her marriage, out of love and affection, gifted the same to him on 10.08.1977 under simple gift deed, which is pending for registration and as such, plaint A and B schedule properties have been under the management of his mother-respondent No.1 as his father- respondent No.2 is not mentally sound. He also states that his mother, without his consent, is trying to dispose of all the properties in favour of the third parties and in that process, respondent No.3 alienated part of plaint-B schedule property by fabricating pass books and sale deeds, dated 15.07.2006, and respondent No.3 also filed O.S.No.64 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Janagaon, for perpetual injunction along with I.A.No.587 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant ex parte ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant, his family members, servants, associates, workmen, relatives and agents etc., from entering into or interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. The appellant filed O.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, for declaration of title and for partition and separate possession along with I.A.Nos.602 and 605 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the respondents/defendants, their agents, followers and supporters from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the properties shown in Schedules A, B and C, enclosed to the petition. Combining all these three I.As., the Court below vide order impugned, allowed I.A.No.587 of 2006 in O.S.No.64 of 2006 and dismissed I.A.Nos.602 and 605 of 2005 in O.S.No.24 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeals. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though plaint A,B and C schedule properties are joint family properties, as respondent No.2 is lunatic, respondent No.1 sold a portion of plaint-B schedule property to respondent No.3 under sale deeds, dated 15.07.2006. He further contended that the Court below ought to have seen the order, dated 27.01.2009, passed by the Joint Collector as regards possession of the appellant and erred in dismissing the I.As filed by the appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the Court below after considering the documentary evidence found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of respondent Nos.3 and declined to grant injunction in favour of the appellant. 7. There is no dispute about the sale of one of the portions of plaint-B schedule property in favour of respondent No.3 by the parents of the appellant under Exs.R1 and R2. Ex.R14- panchanama, dated 27.01.2007, conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer also shows the possession of one of the portions of plaint-B schedule property by respondent No.3. The appellant challenges the same on various grounds. In the circumstances, where the sale deed is executed by the mother in favour of a third party and son challenges the same, collusion between mother and son can be prima facie presumed. It might be a case where mother sold the property to respondent No.3 and later on for various reasons like value of the property going up etc., because a legal plea is available, son and mother might have colluded and filed the suit for the same property. 8. There is no dispute about the sale deeds being genuine and as per the sale deeds the possession being delivered to respondent No.3 and further as already referred to, panchanama- Ex.R-14 conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, shows possession of respondent No.3. 9. In all these circumstances, balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents and apart from that there is prima facie evidence of possession in favour of the respondent. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:22.10.2010. SJ