THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No.1341 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is filed against the order, dated 8.11.2011 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing I.A.No.3942 of 2011 in O.S.No.263 of 2011, filed by the appellant-plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit viz., O.S.No.263 of 2011 against the respondents-defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and for allotting one such share to him. Along with the suit, the appellant-plaintiff filed the above application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The respondents-defendants filed the counter stating that they already partitioned the schedule property and the plaintiff sold the share allotted to him and therefore, he is not entitled to seek any relief in respect of the property in question. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff and the respondents- defendants are brothers and sister and the schedule property is the self-acquired property of their father. According to the appellant- plaintiff, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he demanded for partition, but the respondents- defendants are not co-operating, whereas it is the case of the respondents-defendants that partition in respect of the schedule property took place in the year 1985 and a partition list was executed on 10.5.1985 and the appellant-plaintiff got 153.06 sq. yards in the partition, and he sold away his share on 13.8.2011 to Help Hospital and they also sold their respective shares to the same vendee under different sale deeds, and therefore, the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief in respect of the property in question. The appellant having taken specific plea that the schedule property is in joint possession, he has to prove the same by placing relevant material before the Court. The appellant has not produced any material to prima facie prove that the property is in joint possession of the appellant and respondents. The respondents- defendants on the other hand produced Ex.B1-sale deed alleged to have been executed by the appellant-plaintiff alienating his share of the property in favour of Help Hospital, on 13.8.2011. The appellant- plaintiff did not adduce any evidence even to disprove the same. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant prima facie to show that the property is still in joint possession of the appellant-plaintiff and the respondent-defendant, we are of the opinion that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to grant of interim injunction, and as such no exception can be taken to the order under appeal passed by the Court below refusing to grant temporary injunction. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ N.V.RAMANA, J ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Dated: 12.12.2011 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.1341 OF 2011 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) 12.12.2011 Nn