THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4451 of 2010 (Dated : 09-03-2011) Between: Smt. Y Yashoda W/o Veeraiah …Petitioner A n d Smt. Mudigonda Amruthamma and others …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4451 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2010 passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2007. She filed suit for partition and separate possession of her share. She also moved I.A.No.116 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.1 therein from alienating the petition schedule properties till disposal of the suit. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 resisted the application. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out prima facie case and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 06.2.2008. The plaintiff unsuccessfully carried the matter in C.M.A.No.13 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubangar. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No.116 of 2007 in O.S.No.23 of 2007 as well as the judgment dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge in C.M.A.No.13 of 2008. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not correctly appreciated the material brought on record and thereby, erred in dismissing the injunction application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. 6. The petitioner-plaintiff claims that the properties are joint family properties and therefore, she is entitled to claim her share therein. Whereas, the contesting defendants pleaded that the plaintiff executed relinquishment deed on 18.2.2005 and therefore, she is not entitled to have any share in the suit schedule properties. The execution of the relinquishment deed is not disputed by the petitioner-plaintiff. It has also come on record that the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.9 of 2007 against the petitioner-plaintiff and obtained interim injunction. Exs.B-1 and B-2 are the certified copies of the order passed in I.A.No.58 of 2007 in O.S.No.9 of 2007. The plaintiff being a party in I.A.No.58 of 2007 omitted to mention the interlocutory order passed in the said suit in the injunction application filed by her. The material brought on record prima facie show that the petitioner-plaintiff executed relinquishment deed dated 18.2.2005. Until and unless the relinquishment deed dated 18.2.2005 is set aside, she cannot claim any share in the properties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in her favour. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to reject the relief sought for by the petitioner. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court in refusing the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.09-03-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4451 of 2010 (Dated : 09-03-2011)