The hon’ble sri justice Ghulam mohammed and The hon’ble sri justice p. swaroop reddy C.M.A.No. 510 of 2010 Judgment (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated:26—04—2010 passed in I.A.No. 80 of 2010 in O.S.No. 367 of 2007 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. (For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court). 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents in this appeal are the defendants. The suit was filed by the appellant inter alia seeking to declare that the plaintiff to be sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently directing the plaintiff to be put in actual possession of the suit schedule property and also to direct the concerned revenue authorities to make necessary correction in the revenue records. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.17.35 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos. 60, 61, 62, 66, 71 and 72 situated at Sivareddypet village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as shown in the plaint schedule, which is her ancestral property. It is further stated that she is the grand daughter of Nawab Raisyar Jung, the original pattedar of the property, being the daughter of Shahjahan Begum, daughter of Nawab Raisyar Jung and she is entitled to get 7.64% share from the estate of Nawab Raisyar Jung. The defendants apparently managed the revenue authorities to get their names recorded in the revenue records without any right; when some people tried to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property on 5.3.2007 the plaintiff could resist them. However, they went away threatening to come back and take possession of the property, which the plaintiff will not be in a position to stop. The revenue record entries created a cloud on the title of the plaintiff. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and made counter claim for an injunction against the plaintiff. 5. The trial court on the basis of the material on record, granted injunction in favour of the defendants restraining the plaintiff from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by the defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that in view of the orders passed in I.A.No. 1963 of 1993 in O.P.No. 330 of 1968 and the order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, where under the heirs of Nawab Rais Yar Jung were prima facie identified; the appellant along with the predecessor in title of the respondents/defendants is the co-owner of the property. Thus the plaintiff’s share was established and Pattedar pass book was also issued in her favour by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vikarabad on 24.1.1995. The contention of the Defendants that Nawab Faziliath Hussain s/o Nawab Rias Yar Jung sold vast extent of land, including the entire suit land to the defendants’ mother is false; the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit property and that the injunction petition filed by the defendants is not maintainable. 7. The defendants contended that no partition was effected with regard to the share of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and that the suit for declaration is not maintainable and in such circumstances the order under appeal needs no interference. 8. Now the point for consideration whether there are any grounds to allow the appeal. 9. The prayer in the plaint is – (a) “Declaring the plaintiff to be the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequentially directing the plaintiff to be put in actual physical possession of the suit schedule and ……”. Such being the case, though elsewhere in the plaint, it is claimed that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, there cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the property. Therefore, the order passed by the court below cannot be said to be erroneous. But in view of the claim of the plaintiff that she is the co-owner of the property, it is desirable that status quo with regard to the nature of the property shall be maintained. Hence both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to character of the property and also not to alienate any portion of the property pending disposal of the sit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, itself, as expeditiously as possible. 10. Accordingly the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Dated: 27—09—2010 *KK/BVS. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.