IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NOS. 360 & 399 OF 2010 Between: Kallepalli Venkata Seetha Rama Raju ..... APPELLANTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS AND Padavala Thirumala Rao and 5 others RESPONDENTS IN CMA NO. 360 OF 2010 Kandipalli Appa Rao and 13 others RESPONDENTS IN CMA NO. 399 OF 2010 The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Since the issue involved in both these appeals is interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. These two appeals are filed by one Kallepalli Venkata Seetha Rama Raju, who is the petitioner in IA No. 966 of 2009 the sole plaintiff in OS No. 179 of 2009 and the respondent in IA. No. 297 of 2010, the first defendant in OS No. 40 of 2010, aggrieved by the grant of temporary injunction. He shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant. OS No. 179 of 2009 was filed by the appellant herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property i.e. 808 Sq. yards covered by S.No. 688-A, Block No. 24, Rajendra Nagar area of Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam while OS No. 40 of 2010 is filed against the appellant herein and others seeking declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property in Sy. No. 38/2, Resapuvanipalem village, in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits and for consequential delivery of vacant physical possession, etc. It is case of the appellant that he purchased the property under Registered Sale Agreement cum Power of Attorney dated 24.12.2008 for a consideration of Rs.1,62,87,000/-. It is stated that during the lifetime of one Mosakanti Ammanamma, she executed a Will dated 8.9.1954 in favour of one Smt. M.Ramamba, from whose son, he is said to have purchased the same and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also his case that he submitted a plan with a view to develop the property and paid Rs.3,51,590/- for release of the plan by the Municipal Corporation and Rs.30,000/- for bulk water charges. It is also submitted that when he was raising compound wall therein, on 12.8.2009 the respondents caused obstruction. Hence, he sought injunction. The first respondent while denying material averments has stated that he purchased the property from Venkata Ramanamurthy and when he went to the site, one Kandipalli Gurunaidu and others interfered, which led to his filing a suit in OS No. 3333 of 2004 before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein ad interim injunction was granted and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The case of the second respondent is that the property originally belongs to Kandipalli family. It is stated that the plaint schedule property covered by the boundaries as described in the plaint is actually covered by Sy. No. 38/2 of Resapuvanipalem Revenue village and not in Sy. No. 688 of Allipuram ward and its extent is Ac.14.50 cents in Sy. No. 38/2 and Ac.0.82 cents in Sy. No.38/1. It is also stated that Mosalikanti people had no land after they sold to Pentakota Sreeramulunaidu, who purchased the land in TS No. 688A from Mosankanti Ammannamma and, hence, the appellant is not entitled to the relief. The case of the third respondent is that the Municipal Corporation has laid a road acquiring 300 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 31/2B, 3B, 8C and 9A in Madhuranagar village belonging to his father agreeing to provide alternate site and thus passed resolution dated 7.12.1982 and 25.1.1983 and allotted 267 Sq. yards to his father covered by Sy. No. 38/2 in LP No. 175/62 in Rajendranagar of Resapuvanipalem and for the remaining land in Sy.No.31/2B and 3B, compensation of Rs.1,33,035/- was paid to him and that property devolved on him a per family understanding dated 20.11.1986. It is also stated that resisting the objections of the Corporation, he filed OS No. 766 of 2001 on the file of the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title. In the backdrop of these pleadings, the court below while dismissing IA No. 966 of 2009 in OS No. 179 of 2009 has allowed IA No. 297 of 2010 in OS No. 40 of 2010 restraining the appellant herein and others from proceeding with the construction of any nature in the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred. The court below, adverting to the boundaries mentioned in both the suits, has observed that the land in both the suits is the same. But, however, there is difference in the extent of land, which the parties are claiming. It also remains to be seen as to in which survey number, the land is situated and to what extent. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had purchased the land by virtue of the registered sale deed; whereas the respondents 1 to 3 have also claimed that the property belongs to them, though from different sources. As can be seen from the record, there are two different survey numbers even as per the Survey Report. These disputed questions can only be decided after a full- fledged enquiry and after the evidence is let in. Therefore, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions sought to be raised by the counsel on either side, we feel it expedient to direct the court below to dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment independently, without being influenced by any of the observations, in accordance with law. Till the disposal of the suits, both the parties shall neither alienate or create any third party interest over the suit schedule property nor alter its nature. With this direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 21, 2010 MAS