THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1279 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.888 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. Herself and respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed the suit for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 28.11.2006. A.S.No.28 of 2007 filed by them in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole was also dismissed on 23.07.2011. Hence, this second appeal. The facts pleaded in the plaint were that one Sri Garikamukkala Narsaiah had two sons, by name Subbaiah and Ayyanna and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein) and husband of the appellant are the sons of Subbaiah, whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Ayyanna and respondent No.3 is the son of respondent No.1. It was pleaded that in the family partition, Subbaiah got Acs.0.86 cents of land in Survey No.415/1 of Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, whereas Ayyanna got Acs.0.37 cents. Further partition was said to have been affected among the plaintiffs. Their grievance was that respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have rights in the land in the immediate neighbourhood on the eastern side, are trying to encroach upon the plaint schedule property. A written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. They admitted the relationship of the parties and the allocation of shares in favour of Subbaiah and Ayyanna. It is, however, pleaded that Smt.Polamma W/o.Subbaiah along with her two sons i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sold the land through her G.P.A. in favour of third parties. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaint schedule is correct and plaintiffs are in possession of the schedule property? (2) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? Respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 deposed as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A14 were filed. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The suit as well as the appeal were dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is, no doubt, true that in a family partition, the father-in- law of the appellant herein, by name Subbaiah got an extent of Ac.0.86 cents of land. However, the plea as to further partition among the sons of Subbaiah was in doubt. The respondents have placed before the trial Court, the G.P.A. executed by Polamma W/o.Subbaiah way back on 31.05.1985, Ex.B1, and the resultant sale deed, dated 01.06.1985, Ex.B2, covering the entire property. In case the appellant wanted to dispute the transaction under Ex.B2, she ought to have filed a suit for declaration in that behalf. A mere suit for injunction in this scenario was totally untenable. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.11.2011 kdl