THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 254 of 2007 19-02-2010 Between: Bongariri Jangaiah ……….Appellant And Bongariri Balraj. ……….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 254 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the orders dated 27-02-2007 passed in I.A.No.4458 of 2006 in O.S.No.2831 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. Initially, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2831 of 2006 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule land in Sy. No.585/13/A admeasuring an extent of Ac.12.02 guntas and in Sy. No.585/13/AA admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.05 guntas and to appoint an advocate-commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule land and for consequential relief. The respondent-defendant is the son of the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff, along with the suit, filed an application in I.A.No.4458 of 2006 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from alienating, mortgaging or creating charge in respect of the suit schedule land in favour of third parties. 3. The suit has been filed on the premise that both the parties are the members of the undivided Hindu joint family and the appellant- plaintiff purchased the suit schedule lands in the year 1978 in the name of the respondent-defendant under an agreement of sale. Although the appellant-plaintiff is aged, the respondent-defendant has not been taken care of the appellant-plaintiff. Taking undue advantage of the old age and his ailments, the respondent-defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule lands and when the respondent-defendant refused to partition of the suit schedule lands, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit and sought for temporary injunction. 4. The respondent-defendant opposed the relief contending that the appellant-plaintiff did not purchase the suit schedule land as claimed by him but he himself purchased the land from out of his own funds. He further contended that his mother was the 1st wife of the appellant-plaintiff and she passed away in the year 1953. After which, the appellant-plaintiff again married one Prameela. As the appellant- plaintiff neglected the respondent-defendant, he was brought up by his maternal uncle and after his marriage, he has been residing separately. 5. In support of his case, the appellant-plaintiff filed Exs.P-1 to P-9, whereas the respondent-defendant filed Exs.R-1 to R-6 in support of his case. 6. The trial Court did not believe the contention of the appellant-plaintiff that he purchased the suit lands in the name of the respondent-defendant. On consideration of Ex.R-2, certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No.1637/87, dated 21-08-1987 and Ex.R-5, Occupancy Rights Certificate, issued in favour of the respondent-defendant on 28-02-1983, taking a prima facie view, held that Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. holding that the appellant-plaintiff has not shown prima facie case and that no loss would be caused to the appellant-plaintiff, if injunction was not granted in his favour. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. 8. From the above facts, it can be seen that there is a dispute with reference to the fact as to whether the suit schedule land was purchased by the appellant-plaintiff in the name of the respondent- defendant. The respondent-defendant is none other than the son of the appellant-plaintiff. Though the appellant-plaintiff filed certain documents viz., Exs.P-1 to P-8, pahanies, for the years 1980-81, 1985- 86, 1989-90, 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, respectively, the trial Court did not advert to those documents. 9. Be that as it may, the injunction sought for was only to the limited extent to restrain the respondent-defendant from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit lands. Obviously since the suit itself for partition, if ultimately, the suit is decreed and during the pendency of the suit, if the suit lands are alienated, the third party interest would creep in, and this may ultimately lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in my view, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for injunction. 10. This Court by order dated 30-03-2007 granted interim injunction initially for a period of four weeks and later by order dated 23-04-2009, extended the interim order until the disposal of the appeal. 11. Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant, stated that the respondent-defendant already sold an extent of Ac.6.00 guntas in Sy. No.585/13/A and 585/13/AA vide sale deed, dated 08-03-2007, and which point of time, there was no injunction. 12. Having regard to the circumstances, more particularly, the alienation of same land by the respondent-defendant when there was no injunction, I am of the opinion that status quo as to the property should be maintained in order to preserve the rights of the parties. The appellant-plaintiff is, therefore, entitled for injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from alienating, mortgaging or creating charge in respect of the suit schedule land in favour of third parties, henceforth, and injunction is accordingly granted. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 27-02-2007 in I.A.No.4458 of 2006 in O.S.No.2831 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, is set aside. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, and that the appellant-plaintiff is 71 years old, it is desired that the suit be disposed of early. Hence, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is, therefore, requested to dispose of the main suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 19th February 2010 KVR