THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5819 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.173 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the respondents for declaration of her right, in respect of items 1 to 4 of the suit schedule, and for partition of item No.5 thereof. She pleaded that her father, late Subba Reddy, had a brother by name late Linga Reddy, the husband of the 2nd respondent and father of respondents 3 to 5; are sons of late Audi Reddy, and in a family partition, items 1 to 4 of the suit schedule were allotted to the share of Subba Reddy, and item 5 to the share of Audi Reddy. The particulars of the property that are said to have fallen to the share of Linga Reddy were also mentioned. According to her, half of item 5 devolved upon Subba Reddy, on the death of his father, Audi Reddy. Claiming to be the sole legal heir of Subba Reddy, she sought the reliefs in the suit. The 1st respondent is her mother, who was divorced from Subba Reddy. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.408 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The suit and the I.A are contested mainly by the respondents 2 to 5. They pleaded that, while seeking divorce from Subba Reddy, the 1st respondent has relinquished the rights of herself and the petitioner herein, vis-à-vis any properties held by Subba Reddy. It was also pleaded that she filed O.S.No.109 of 1999 through her grand- father for partition of the present suit schedule properties, and that the said suit was dismissed in the year 2004. Reference was made to a relinquishment deed executed by the 1st respondent, on 14-10-1991. Respondents 2 to 5 are said to have looked after Audi Reddy, and that he in turn executed a Will in favour of the 3rd respondent. They denied the possession of the petitioner over any of the properties. The trial Court dismissed I.A. through order dated 28-01-2010. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.6 of 2010 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole. The C.M.A was dismissed on 28-10-2010. Hence this revision. Heard Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit is filed by the petitioner herein, partly for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of some items, and for partition, as regards another item. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The 1st respondent, the mother of the petitioner, is divorced, and that she executed a deed of relinquishment on behalf of herself and on behalf of the petitioner. Assuming that the 1st respondent has no right to relinquish the rights of the petitioner, at the most, the rights of coparcenery, or succession of the petitioner, vis- à-vis the properties of her father may be intact. However, in an I.A., under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., it is necessary to establish the possession over the suit schedule properties, as on the date of filing of the suit. The petitioner did not place any material worth its name, before the trial Court or the lower Appellate Court to establish of her possession over the property. Hence, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have rejected the relief of temporary injunction. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed. It is however directed that any observations made by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court as regards the rights of the petitioner, either for declaration of title, or partition, shall not be treated as final. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-08-2011. KO