THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A. No.843 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.700 of 2010 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereunder and whereby the Court below partly allowed the petition filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 CPC granting interim injunction restraining the respondents /defendants and their men from alienating the plaint A to C schedule properties to others until the disposal of the suit, but at the same time, permitted the first respondent/first defendant to make necessary repairs or alterations in the plaint B schedule property. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is none other than the son of the respondent No.s and he has no other source of income or place to reside and that he got right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties and that the properties are the ancestral properties of the appellant and the respondents. 3 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and that the appellant /plaintiff has no right or title over the same and therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 4 The suit has been instituted by the appellant/plaintiff claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Rights of the parties with regard to the title and interest over the schedule properties have to be decided in the suit itself. At this stage, it is not desirable to give a finding because it will have an impact on the disposal of the suit. But the order under challenge is only with regard to giving permission to the first defendant to make necessary repairs or alterations in the plaint B schedule properties. Even if the first defendant is allowed to make any constructions on the plaint B schedule property, that would not cause any hardship or loss to the appellant / plaintiff and that would not come in the way of the right of the plaintiff and if he ultimately succeeds in the suit, the property can be divided in terms of the preliminary decree that may be passed. Therefore, allowing the first defendant to make construction of the building in the plaint B schedule property would not cause any hindrance or loss to the plaintiff. 5 The apprehension of the appellant / plaintiff before this court is that if the property is let out to third party for commercial purpose, third party interest will be created in the schedule properties. For that the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants undertook to the effect that the respondents will not let out the property to the third parties and that after making construction of the house in the plaint B schedule property, it would be used only for residential purpose. 6 Recording the said undertaking the CMA is dismissed. In view of the nature of the dispute between close relations, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible, subject to part-heard and old cases. No costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 12.10.2011 Kvsn