THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.105 and 106 of 2009 01.2.2010 Between: Sirigina Venkata Rama Mohan Das, S/o.late Suryanarayana Murthy And another … Appellants AND Vadrevu Pavan Kumar, S/o.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.105 and 106 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon,ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This common order shall dispose of these two miscellaneous appeals. Though appeals arise out of two separate interlocutory orders in two separate suits, having regard to the fact that first defendant against whom the decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction is sought, is the same, it is appropriate to dispose of the appeals by the common order. The dispute is essentially between Sirigina Venkata Rama Mohan Das (hereafter, father) and his daughters – Atluri Padmavathi and Sirigina Saraswathi (hereafter, daughters). The daughters filed O.S.No.48 of 2008 and whereas vendee of their vendee, Vadrevu Pavan Kumar, filed O.S.No.49 of 2008. These suits on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, are for declaration of title, permanent injunction and consequential declaration that the sale deed executed by father in favour of second defendant in the suit is null and void. The daughters alleged that their father executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 08.9.1988 in respect of 987 Sq.yards of house site situated in plot No.B25 (Part), Block No.II in R.S.No.2, which he had purchased under registered sale deed dated 23.4.1962 from Gandhipuram Cooperative Society. The daughters then sold an extent of 368 Sq.yards under registered sale deed dated 12.5.1994 in favour of Sunkara Parvathi. They also sold another extent of 153 Sq.yards under registered sale deed dated 13.5.1994 to the same vendee, Sunkara Parvathi. Be it noted that Parvathi in turn sold an extent of 368 Sq.yards under registered sale deed dated 30.7.2007 to Pavan Kumar. The daughters further allege that after alienating about 528 Sq.yards they are in possession of 466 Sq.yards. But taking advantage of their absence (daughters reside in Hyderabad), their father sold 987 Sq.yards to M/s.Bharathi Estates (second defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2008) under registered sale deed dated 23.6.2008 and is trying to interfere with their possession. They also sought ad interim injunction. Along with the daughters, Pavan Kumar, purchaser, filed the suit for similar relief and also sought ad interim injunction. The suits as well as interlocutory applications for ad interim injunction were opposed by father. He alleged that his daughters filed O.S.No.59 of 1975 for declaration of title based on alleged relinquishment deed dated 22.6.1972, that the same was dismissed on 29.3.1980, that their appeal being A.S.No.106 of 1980 was also dismissed on 03.10.1986 and that their second appeal being S.A.No.397 of 1987 was also dismissed on 10.3.2000. He alleged that the relinquishment deed dated 08.9.1988 set up by his daughters never saw the light of the day till the date of filing of suit and that plaintiffs in both the suits have no right to claim title. He also stated that his insolvency petition being I.P.No.48 of 1971 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, was allowed and he was declared insolvent. He denied other allegations. When the interlocutory application being I.A.No.1321 of 2008 filed by daughters was considered, Exs.A1 to A24 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Considering the documentary evidence and relying on five decisions of this Court, the Court below came to the conclusion that the daughters proved prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and accordingly granted ad interim injunction restraining father and M/s.Bharathi Estates from interfering with peaceful possession of daughters. A similar order was passed in I.A.No.1323 of 2008 filed by Pavan Kumar. Learned Counsel for appellants (father and purchasers) and Counsel for daughters made elaborate submissions reiterating their positions. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in ordering ad interim injunction. Father purchased suit schedule property under Ex.A2. As observed by the Court below both the defendants have 1/3rd each share and father had 1/3rd share. Under Ex.A1 relinquishment deed dated 08.9.1988, father relinquished his share in favour of daughters and thus both the daughters became entitled to 1/2 share each. There is no dispute that under Exs.A3 and A4, an extent of 521 Sq.yards was sold to Sunkara Parvathi under two separate sale deeds and after demise of purchaser, her predecessors sold 363 Sq.yards to Pavan Kumar under Ex.A7 in I.A. No.1323 of 2008. There is no dispute that the said purchaser Pavan Kumar constructed a house and he is in possession of the same. However, there is a dispute with regard to possession of 466 Sq.yards. As per Ex.A10 and averment of father in Ex.A22, affidavit filed in I.P.No.48 of 1971, on probabilities, it can be inferred that it is only the daughters who are in possession of property. The submission of learned Counsel for father that daughters are residing in Hyderabad and, therefore, the possession cannot be presumed, cannot be accepted. Whether it is actual possession or constructive possession, the law recognizes both and gives right to the person to take possession in case of legal injury or threatened legal injury of dispossession. From the evidence on record including Exs.A1, A2, A3, A4, A10 and A22, there cannot be any doubt that the daughters and Pavan Kumar proved their possession and that is to be protected. However, learned Counsel for father contends that the property is situated in a prime area and there is likelihood of daughters alienating the property to third parties. In view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, lis pendens operates. However, we are inclined to order status quo having regard to the fact that the parties are very closely related. The order of status quo is to avoid any complications by third parties. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of, directing the parties to maintain status quo. We also request the learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, to club both the suits and dispose of the same, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order excluding court vacation period and without being influenced by the observations made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) February 01, 2009 YS