THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.912 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 07.11.2007 passed in I.A.No.426 of 2007 in O.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit O.S.No.17 of 2007 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Pending suit he also filed I.A.No.426 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 94 and 151 CPC praying the Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendants and their men from alienating or creating charge, lease and encumbrance over the petition schedule property which is an extent of Ac.9.33 guntas comprised in Sy.No.293 situated at Bheemaram village of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District and an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas comprised in Sy.No.292 situated at Bheemaram village of Hasanparthy Mandal in Warangal District being compact block and contagious piece totalling 11 acres. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Court below on 07.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below erred in believing the alleged Will deed/Tafsil nama dated 05.02.1976 and whether the said deed is acted upon or not is to be gone into during the course of trial. The trial Court ought to have seen that the alleged Will deed, captioned as Tafsil nama has never seen the light of the day, as such ought not to have believed at an interlocutory stage, unless and until the same is established in a full-fledged trial. He further submits that the learned Judge erred in holding that Exs.P.1 to P.3 disclose that the petitioner and the respondents are enjoying their respective shares separately. In fact the respondents claimed the suit schedule property as their absolute property as the same is evident from the caveat filed by the respondents which was marked as Ex.P.2, as such on this ground alone the learned Judge ought to have allowed the I.A. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material made available on record. The contention of the appellant was that there was a settlement/Tafsil nama and by virtue of that they have identified their respective shares under the Tafsilnama. The trial Court declined to grant injunction stating that the petitioners have not made out any prima facie case and balance of convenience in respect of their shares. Further the trial Court has rightly found that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are enjoying their respective shares of property separately and if they are restrained by way of injunction from alienating the respective shares of properties, they will be put to much hardship. Therefore, granted liberty to deal with their respective shares of properties in order to meet the urgent necessities like performing the marriages of their daughters or construction of houses etc., There is no error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. Accordingly we confirm the orders passed by the Court below. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J 5th October, 2010. PNV