IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2010 Between: Agraharapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy ..... Appellant AND Smt. Peruri Manikyamba @ Mani and another .....Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal assails the order, dated 2.08.2010, passed in I.A. No. 1127 of 2010 in O.S. No. 56 of 2010 by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Kakinada, dismissing the petition filed under Order 39 Rue 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the first respondent from executing any kind of document in favour of third parties in any manner whatsoever affecting limited rights in respect of the undivided 16/70th share in the plaint schedule property. The appellant herein filed the above suit seeking perpetual injunction from executing any kind of document in favour of third parties in respect of his limited rights over 16/70th undivided share. It is the case of the appellant that his grandfather Agraharapu Meena Rao was given the said share under a registered settlement deed dated 14.12.1957 executed by the proprietor and sole Manager of M/s. Venkateswara Salt Kotars and his grandfather in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a Will dated 17.4.1990 and deposited with the second respondent herein, which was registered on 25.6.1993 in the office of the second respondent after demise of the propounder, as document No.267 of 1993. It is his case that the recitals of the sale deeds, under which the propounder disposed of other properties, the first respondent herein has admitted the Will dated 17.4.1990, but since March, 2009 the first respondent and her henchmen are trying to trespass illegally into the property claiming that it was bequeathed in her favour under a different Will dated 2.6.1992, which according to the appellant is a forged one. Hence, along with the suit, he filed IA No. 1127 of 2010 seeking to grant temporary injunction. It is the case of the first respondent herein that their grandfather purchased Ac.16.00 of land and it was his absolute property. It is her case that the appellant had wantonly suppressed the third Will dated 9.5.1993. It is also stated that the Will dated 17.4.1990 was brought into existence and by the Will dated 2.6.1992 executed by their grandfather, all the previous testaments stand cancelled, as such, the Will dated 17.4.1990 under which the appellant is claiming the right in the plaint schedule property, also does have any sanctity. The court below, by the order impugned in the appeal, dismissed the application observing that since the salt business is not being carried on, the adjudication of the issue as to whether the appellant is entitled for temporary injunction or not, can be decided in the suit itself. It is further observed that the appellant can even take the plea of doctrine of lis pendence in the event the first respondent executes any document affecting appellant’s rights, if any, in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. Though several contentions are sought to be raised by the learned counsel on either side, we are not inclined to delve on the same, inasmuch as the rights of the parties can effectively and conclusively be adjudged after the evidence, both oral and documentary, is adduced. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the court below has passed the order impugned on probabilities more particularly when the Will dated 2.6.1992, which, according to learned counsel for the respondent cancels Ex.A-2 Will dated 17.4.1990 is not produced before the court below. Therefore, it is not safe to decide the rights of the parties at this stage, on the basis of the findings arrived at by the court below. Therefore, without adverting to the various contentions raised by the counsel on either side, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of both the parties will be safeguarded by directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule properties. In view of the nature of lis, the court below is directed to expedite disposal of the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao February 9, 2011 MAS.