THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.655 of 2011 Dated 15th July, 2011 Between: Palle Anjaiah (died) through his LRs …Appellants And Palle Siva Lingam …Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Sri P.Suresh Kumar For Sri Abdul Khader Counsel for respondent: --- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2011, in A.S.No.9 of 2007, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 15.03.2007, in O.S.No.323 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, was reversed. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. One Palle Anjaiah filed O.S.No.323 of 2002 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging and transferring the suit property admeasuring Acs.4.35 guntas in Survey No.288/AA of Timmapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Nalgonda District, to third parties. It was his case that he and the defendant have common ancestor and that while partition in respect of other lands has taken place, the suit land in Survey No.288/AA was allowed to remain joint, and when the defendant tried to alienate the suit property, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction against alienation etc. The defendant filed written statement, wherein he has taken the plea that a partition has already taken place during the life time of the common ancestor in the year 1960 itself and that the suit property having fallen to the share of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of injunction. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence – both oral and documentary, adduced by both the parties, decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court having reversed the said judgment and decree in A.S.No.9 of 2007, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the appeal, have filed the present second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the lower appellate Court has committed a serious error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, which decreed the suit after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. One striking aspect on which the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court is that if the plaintiff asserted his right over the property in question, there was no reason why he did not seek substantive relief of declaration that the suit land is joint family property or for partition of the suit land by claiming his share. The lower appellate Court referred to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with the cases where an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious reliefs can be granted. This Court is entirely in agreement with this view of the lower appellate Court. In the event an injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff and if he does not choose to claim substantive relief in future, such as declaration of his right or for partition of the suit property, an anomalous situation arises, where the defendant will ever be bound by an order of injunction without declaration of rights of the plaintiff. Such a situation cannot be allowed to emerge by granting a decree for injunction, which will have the result of perpetually preventing the defendant from transferring the suit property. On this sole ground, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court deserve to be sustained. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed, however, with liberty to the appellants-plaintiffs to file a substantive suit in respect of the suit schedule property. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, S.A.M.P.No.1484 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th July, 2011 VGB