THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 369 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per K.S. Appa Rao, J) This C.M.A. is filed against the Order and decree dated 24.3.2011 passed in I.A.No. 3390 of 2010 in O.S.No. 201 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Appellant herein is the petitioner in I.A.No. 3390 of 2010 in O.S.No. 201 of 2010. The Court below having heard both sides dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, the present C.M.A. is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the petitioner filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and the Court below ought to have granted injunction pursuant to the pending of the suit for partition. He further urged that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and the lower Court failed to consider the same and that the Order of the lower Court dismissing the petition is erroneous and requested to set aside the orders thereunder. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the trial Court rightly held in its order that the petition schedule property is the self acquired property of the respondent and he has not purchased with the help of nucleus of ancestral or joint family properties and that the petitioner failed to establish the prima facie case in his favour and supported the order of the trial Court. Now the point for consideration is whether the Order of the trial Court is sustainable? For brevity and better understanding the nomenclature of the parties arrayed in the lower Court will be arrayed same in the present appeal also. The appellant herein is the petitioner and plaintiff in I.A.No. 3390 of 2010 in O.S.No. 201 of 2010. She filed Petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from alienating the petition schedule property. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father K. Pentaiah has purchased the petition schedule property with Stridhana property of her mother under a registered sale deed in the name of the respondent, who is her brother as benami. After the death of her parents, the respondent agreed to give a portion of the schedule property to her and executed a registered Will dated 16.9.2005. It is her further contention that she learnt through public notice in Times of India, Hyderabad of 14.2.2010 that the respondent entered into an agreement of sale with third parties to sell the schedule properties which prompted her to file the petition. It is the contention of the respondent that he purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed by paying valuable consideration and he permitted the petitioner, who is his sister to stay in a portion of the petition schedule property as a Licensee. It is further contended that he executed a Will Deed in favour of his wife, grand son of his brother and his sister(petitioner) with a fond hope that they will look after him in his old age, but they totally neglected him and his wife resulting his wife died and that the petitioner has no right in the suit schedule property and it is his self acquired property. In the trial Court Ex.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the respondent and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. It is the main contention of the respondent is that he purchased petition schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1981 by paying valuable consideration to his vendor. This Ex.B-2 is registration extract of sale deed is dated 23.12.1981. It is also the further contention of the respondent that he filed O.S.No. 823 of 2010 on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad against the petitioner herein for eviction and the same is pending. It seems that the petitioner engaged an Advocate in the said proceedings. It is her contention that respondent purchased the schedule property under Ex.B-2 with the Stridhana property of his mother, but the same is not reflected in Ex.B-2, contrary Ex.B-2 registration extract of the sale deed reads that the respondent has purchased the petition schedule property by paying the sale consideration to his vendor. Ex.B-3 is registration extract of the Will deed dated 31.10.2006 executed by the respondent in favour of his wife, grand son and the petitioner in respect of the schedule property. The recitals in Ex.B-3 also to that effect that the schedule property is self acquired property of the respondent and it was not purchased with the help of any nucleus of ancestral or joint family properties. If really, the respondent purchased the property covered under Ex.B-2 with Stridhana property of his mother, her silence from the date of the sale deed dated 23.12.1981 till filing of the suit O.S.No. 823 of 2010 draws adverse inference that she had no joint right in the suit schedule property. It is a clear assertion of the respondent that the petitioner was permitted to stay in a portion of the house as a Licensee, that being the reason he filed the suit O.S.No. 823 of 2010 against the petitioner for eviction. None of the documents filed by the respondent shows that the suit schedule property was purchased with the joint family funds. Having admitted the execution of Ex.B-1 by the respondent in favour of the petitioner and others, the petitioner now cannot agitate that the suit schedule property was purchased with the Stridhana property of his mother contrary to the recitals in Ex.B-2 dated 23.12.1981. Admittedly, the suit O.S.No. 823 of 2010 for eviction was filed prior to the present suit filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, I see no bona fides in the contention of the petitioner and the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. In the aforesaid circumstances and in particular the evidence on record, the petitioner failed to establish the prima facie case resulting she is not entitled to grant relief of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances, we see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is sustainable. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 30.4.2011 CHV