THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.742 of 2009 19.10.2009 Between: Smt.S.Bharathi, W/o.Murali Manohar Naidu and another … Appellants AND Smt.R.Jyotsna Krishna Kumari (died) ad others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.742 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon,ble VVSR,J) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.24 of 2009, against the order dated 19.6.2009 in I.A.No.531 of 2009 passed by the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder learned trial Judge refused to grant ad interim injunction in their favour. In this appeal, for the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their status in the suit. The plaintiffs, respondents 2 to 5 and one Santosh Kumar are children of Smt.R.Jyotsna Krishna Kumari, deceased first defendant. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of plaint A, B, C and D schedule properties, which comprised of considerable extents of lands as well as a Bungalow with appurtenant land admeasuring Acs.5.27 guntas. The case of plaintiffs is that plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties as their father, late Krishna Kumar, purchased them by investing corpus fund from ancestral properties and that there was no partition among survivors of their father and that as members of joint family, they are entitled to a share in the property. Along with the suit, they filed I.A.No.531 of 2009 for temporary injunction restraining defendants from altering physical features and creating third party rights in respect of plaint A, B and C schedule properties. During the pendency of suit, their mother Jyotsna Krishna Kumari died. Defendants opposed the application. They contended that their mother was the absolute owner of plaint A schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24.2.1995 and that she registered a codicil to the Will dated 17.1.1998, and therefore, the property has to be divided as per the Will. They also averred that respondents 1 and 5 are absolute owners of plaint B schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 30.11.1997. They denied the allegation that plaint schedule properties were purchased out of the nucleus of joint family property. The trial Court rejected the petition on the holding that an order of temporary injunction cannot be granted against the true owners and that plaintiffs failed to place any evidence before the Court in support of the allegation that defendants were trying to alter physical features or trying to alienate the properties. The relationship among the parties is not denied. Though the defendants rely on the Will executed by the mother on 17.1.1998 and registered codicil, the effect of the same would depend on proving the Will in accordance with law. There is also no denial that mother was a house wife and the question whether she had capacity to purchase plaint B schedule property along with fifth defendant is also writ large. An allegation is now made that fifth defendant has laid a tennis court on plaint B schedule property, which created a genuine apprehension in the minds of plaintiffs that there is likelihood of change of land use and likelihood of transferring the property. In this background, if defendants are allowed to create third party rights, it would certainly result in multiplicity and complexity of litigation. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the suit itself should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the trial Court and pending such disposal the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession and other aspects. We record submission of learned Counsel for respondents that fifth defendant who is in possession of plaint B schedule property has laid tennis court for the use of his children only and that it is not intended for outsiders. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of, directing the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to dispose of O.S.No.24 of 2009 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order excluding Court vacation period and without seeking further extension of time for disposal of the suit. We hope and expect that learned Counsel for the parties shall cooperate in disposing of the suit expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) October 19, 2009 YS