THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.322 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.1308 of 2009 in the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and separate possession of his one-seventh share in the suit schedule property. Respondents 2 to 7 i.e., defendants 1 to 6 are his brothers and sisters and the appellant herein i.e., respondent No.7 is a third party. In the suit, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1419 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the appellant herein from altering the nature of the suit schedule property or from alienating it to third parties. He pleaded that the suit schedule property was fraudulently occupied by the appellant, without any basis and that if he creates any third party rights or alters the nature of property, several complications would arise. Respondents 2 to 7 were shown as not necessary parties. The relief was claimed against the appellant alone. The appellant filed a counter opposing the I.A. He stated that respondents 1 to 7 had one-third share in the entire property and collectively they have transferred their one-third share in favour of one Smt. Farzana Begum, and that she, in turn, executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of 230 square yards. It is also stated that the said lady has derived rights from one Smt. Kulsum Begum, in respect of the property. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 10.02.2010. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is not in possession of the suit schedule property and he acknowledged the possession of the appellant over it. The appellant states that all the respondents herein have transferred their right and interest in respect of one-third share in the property way back in the year 1993. The question as to whether respondents 1 to 7 and in particular, the 1st respondent, has any subsisting interest in the property needs to be examined in the suit. The appellant had purchased the property from one source and to be on safe side, got a document from another person, who laid claim in the property. At no point of time, the 1st respondent objected to it. Be that as it may, the appellant, who purchased the property, cannot be prevented from using it for his benefit, though he can be prevented from alienating it in favour of third parties. The construction, if any, made by the appellant would naturally be subject to the outcome of the suit and he cannot claim any equities for it. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order under appeal to the effect that there shall be temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from alienating the suit schedule property, except with the permission of the Court. He shall be entitled to use the property or to construct a building thereon, but he shall not claim equities for such development, in case he suffers any decree. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 20.07.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.322 of 2010 Date: 20.07.2011 JSU