THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. No. 855 of 2010 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2010 passed in I.A. No. 907 of 2010 in I.A. No.2085 of 2009 in O.S. No.671 of 2009 by the I Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. The appellants herein have filed the suit in O.S. No. 671 of 2009 for partition of the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, they also filed I.A. No. 2085 of 2009 seeking ad-interim injunction and obtained status quo orders. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed vacate stay petition in I.A. No. 907 of 2010 seeking to vacate the status quo orders granted in I.A. No. 2085 of 2009 and the lower Court, by impugned order dated 06.09.2010, allowed the said petition and set aside the order of status quo dated 22.10.2009 in I.A. No. 2085 of 2009 in O.S. No. 671 of 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein filed the present appeal. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that originally the plaint schedule properties belonged to their common ancestor namely A. Linga Reddy, who had three sons namely A. Narsa Reddy, A. Laxma Reddy and A. Bagi Reddy. The appellants herein are the wife and son of A. Bagi Reddy, respondents 4 to 14 are the legal heirs of A. Laxma Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the sons of A. Narsa Reddy. A. Linga Reddy died in the year 1958. A. Narsa Reddy, A. Laxma Reddy and A. Bagi Reddy also died. The sum and substance of the case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the suit schedule properties are not partitioned and that they have a share in the suit schedule properties. The sum and substance of the case of the respondents/defendants is that partition had taken place in 1960 in the presence of elders and that it was an oral partition. But, however, subsequently, the parties have sold away their respective shares and some of the properties have been alienated jointly. The lower Court, having considered the earlier transactions made by the parties and also taking into consideration the averments made in the earlier plaint in O.S. No.152 of 2003 filed against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction and the docket orders passed therein, which are marked as Exs.P1 and P2, came to the conclusion that after the death of A. Linga Reddy, his sons have orally partitioned their lands among themselves in which A. Bagi Reddy, through whom the appellants/plaintiffs have been claiming the share, was allotted Ac.2-18 gts., in Survey No.10 of Kompally and that subsequently the revenue authorities effected mutation in favour of A. Bagi Reddy. The lower Court has also, after taking into consideration the earlier litigation in Land Grabbing Case No.9 of 1997, filed by M. Shankaraiah and other defendants, the respondents herein, which was ended in favour of M. Shankaraiah and others, and dismissal of SLP, and also taking into consideration the alienations made by A. Bagi Reddy to third parties claiming himself to be the absolute owner and Ex.A10 agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 29.03.2000 executed in favour of one P. Narayan Reddy, wherein A. Bagi Reddy had clearly mentioned that he is the sole and absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-17 gts., in Survey No.10 part, situated at Kompally village and also the suit filed by the respondents and others in O.S. No. 53 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District judge, R.R. District, for specific performance of agreement of sale and the compromise recorded in the said suit before the Lok Adalat, R.R. District, came to the conclusion that in fact prima facie case is in favour of the respondents/defendants and that the ancestors of the appellants/plaintiffs seems to have sold away the properties as absolute owners and accordingly vacated the status quo order. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the partition suit is pending and when the respondents/defendants have not come up with any specific plea with regard to allotment of shares between the parties, the property has to be preserved pending disposal of the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has taken us through the findings of the lower Court in earlier litigation and submitted that evidence on record proves that partition took place in the year 1960. He has also referred to the schedule of properties in the said partition. After hearing both the counsel and perusing the entire material on record, it is clear that the present litigation is the second round litigation by the appellants after dismissal of SLP before the apex Court. The trial Court, after considering the entire material on record, has rightly come to a conclusion that there is prima facie material to show that there was an earlier partition and since the appellants herein have suppressed the said factum of earlier partition it was held that the status quo order has to be vacated, and we see no reason to interfere with the said prima facie finding at this stage. The CMA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, to protect the interest of the parties, it is made clear that any constructions made in the suit schedule property shall be subject to outcome of the main suit. In the circumstances, no costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 06.12.2010 Nsr