THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No.390 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is filed by the appellant-1st defendant against the order dated 22.3.2011 passed in I.A.No.903 of 2009 in O.S.No.72 of 2009 by the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed the suit against the appellant and another for partition of the plaint schedule properties shown in item No.1 into two equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of northern side half share to him and also for partition of item No.2 of the plaint schedule into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.903 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC for the relief of interim injunction against the defendants not to alienate any part from out of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and not to make any permanent constructions till disposal of the main suit. The Court below allowed the said application directing the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed the present CMA. The learned Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant contended that the appellant-1st defendant is in possession of half of item No.1 towards southern side and the plaintiff is claiming only half of item No.1 towards northern side, but the Court below granted status quo in respect of the entire property and therefore, interim order suffers from arbitrariness and illegality. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submits that the appellant-1st defendant may be permitted to construct in his share on the southern side portion of item No.1 in 189.50 sq. yards, which the plaintiff is not claiming and for which the plaintiff has no objection and the same shall be done without claiming any equities. The learned Counsel also tried to justify the order impugned herein. But we are not convinced for the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge while granting the status quo order. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff. From a perusal of the plaint and the relief sought by respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit, it became crystal clear that he is claiming only half of the share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property i.e., falling on the northern side. While it is the specific case of the appellant-defendant No.1 that he is making constructions in half of the share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property falling towards the southern side. Since he is making construction only in half of the share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property falling towards the southern side and not in the half share of item No.1, falling on the northern side, which respondent No.1-plaintiff is claiming, he submits that he be permitted to go ahead with the making of constructions and undertakes that he will not claim any equities. Since respondent No.1-plaintiff is seeking half share of item No.1 of the suit schedule property falling towards the northern side, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was not justified in granting Status quo in respect of entire item No.1 of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, and having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.1-plaintiff, as noted above, we deem it appropriate, and accordingly modify the order of status quo passed by the Court below to the effect that status quo shall be maintained by the parties with respect to half of the share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property on the northern side. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana DATE: 2.9.2011 ____________________ Justice P. Durga Prasad nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.390 OF 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 2.9.2011 Nn