THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.172 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.1345 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at N.T.R.Nagar, Hyderabad for partition of the suit schedule properties. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the respondents/defendants are his brothers and joint owners and possessors of land in Sy.Nos.91, 92, 93 and 95 admeasuring total extent of Acs.38.10 guntas situated at Kecharam Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He claims that the property is ancestral property and therefore he is entitled for partition and a share in the suit schedule lands. The first respondent/first defendant claims that his father late Jakkula Jangaiah was the absolute owner of the lands in Sy.Nos.20, 84, 91, 92, 93 and 95 admeasuring total extent of Acs.52.39 guntas. His father had two wives Smt.J.Parvathamma and Smt.J.Mallamma and he is the son of Smt.Parvathamma and the appellant/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant are the sons of Smt.Mallamma. In the year 1950 his father executed registered document No.1794, dated 11- 07-1950 by which life interest was created in favour of Smt.Parvathamma and the same would revert back to Jangaiah. After the revertion and after the demise of Jangaiah it would evolve upon the first respondent/first defendant. The first respondent/first defendant therefore claims that he is the absolute and exclusive owner of the lands in Sy.Nos.91, 92, 93 and 95. He however stated that insofar as lands situated in Sy.Nos.20 and 84 they were liable for partition and partition was accordingly effected. After the partition, the appellant/plaintiff sold away his share in Sy.Nos.20 and 84 to third parties vide registered sale deeds, dated 08-09-1998, 03-08-2000, 09- 02-2004 and 05-01-2006. Therefore, the first respondent/first defendant claims that the appellant/plaintiff has no right in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.91, 92, 93 and 95. The Court below taking the aforesaid facts and on a consideration of the documents Exs.P1 to P19 filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and Exs.R1 to R25 filed by the first respondent/first defendant based on Ex.R5 which is the registered document executed by late Jangaiah and mutation of name of the appellant/plaintiff in respect of Sy.Nos.20 and 84 and mutation of name of the first respondent/first defendant in Sy. Nos.91, 92, 93 and 95 prima facie came to the conclusion that there was a clear family settlement between the parties in respect of the entire land possessed by late Jangaiah. Since the appellant/plaintiff suppressed material facts as to the partition and possession of land in respect of Sy.Nos.20 and 84 and by taking into consideration Ex.R5 and the mutation of the name of the first respondent/first defendant, dismissed the I.A. for temporary injunction. Heard. Prima facie it may appear that there was family settlement in pursuance of which the lands in Sy.Nos.91, 92, 93 and 95 have gone to the share of the first respondent/first defendant. It is true that the appellant/plaintiff did not disclose the facts with reference to the lands in Sy.Nos.20 and 84. However, the relevant question is as to whether the rights of both the parties should be preserved during the pendency of the suit. There is a dispute as to the rights of the parties in respect of the suit lands and the alienation of the suit lands would lead to third party interest which ultimately would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The injunction sought for by the appellant/plaintiff is only to a limited extent of restraining the first respondent/first defendant from alienating or creating third party interest. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant if the suit lands are not alienated during the pendency of the suit. And on the other hand, rights of the parties would be preserved subject to the result of the suit. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for injunction to the extent of restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule land to third parties till the disposal of the suit. The order in I.A.No.1200 of 2006, dated 18-01-2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar, Hyderabad is accordingly set aside and the said I.A. is allowed and accordingly injunction is granted restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule land to third party till the disposal of the suit. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Having regard to the nature of the suit and that the same has been filed in the year 2006, the learned Senior Civil Judge is requested to dispose of the suit itself at an early date, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19th February, 2010. skmr