THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3126 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant and the respondent are the sons of late Balaiah. Their another brother, viz., Jambula Krishna Reddy, is said to have gone in illatam, to Mr.Kondakindi Janardhan Reddy, Wanapatla Village. The properties left by Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, were partitioned, between the appellant and the respondent, through a document, dated 10.05.1983. They got Acs.5.09 guntas, each, in survey Nos.738/AA, E and 741/A of Yedutla Village, Gopalpet Mandal. The appellant filed O.P.No.3 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short ‘the Act’), stating that the respondent intended to sell his share of property, and though the appellant expressed his willingness to purchase the same, the respondent did not accede to his request. Therefore, he wanted to enforce his right of preemption, conferred under Section 22 of the Act. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, opposing the O.P. It was pleaded that, an agreement was already entered into, on 07.12.1997, and the appellant and his sons were trying to forcibly occupy the land. It is also pleaded that in collusion with anti-social elements, the appellant stopped the registration. Through its order, dated 01.10.1999, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri C.Nageshwara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri A.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The relationship, between the parties, is not disputed. To prove his case, the appellant examined PWs.1 to 3 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of respondent, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court took on record Exs.X.1 and X.2. The trial Court dismissed the O.P., mainly, on the ground that a regular suit has to be filed for enforcement of the rights and not an O.P. Findings were also recorded, on merits. This Court would certainly have dealt with the matter, in detail, but for the fact that C.M.P.No.24567 of 1999, filed in this appeal, seeking injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating the property, was dismissed. The fact that the agreement of sale was entered into, much earlier, and consideration was paid, was taken note of. Even if relief is granted in this C.M.A., the same cannot be enjoyed by the appellant, on account of the fact that the property has already been passed on, to a third party, who is not impleaded, in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the C.M.A., is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:19.08.2009. GJ