IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBR, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.935 OF 2010 Between: Enumulapally Surekha and two others … Appellants And Bingi Chinna Gangaram and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.935 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) At the interlocutory stage, learned counsel for the respective parties agreed that having regard to the short compass within which the facts fall for consideration, the substantive Appeal i.e., C.M.A.No.935 of 2010, could itself be disposed of. The appellants have preferred the appeal aggrieved by the order, dated 15.9.2010, of the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial in I.A.No.651 of 2010 in O.S.No.11 of 2010. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in an extent of Acs.1-34 guntas in survey No.254 and Ac.0-38 guntas in survey No.55 of Lingampet shivar of Jagitial mandal claiming to be the descendants of the original owner of Enumalapally Laxmi Bai. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit claim contending to be the purchasers of the plaint schedule property from Laxmi Bai under unregistered sale deeds of the year 1968, which have been regularised under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”) under proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned in the year 2005. The case of the appellants in the suit is that a revision preferred by them against the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer is pending before the Joint Collector under the provisions of the Act. The Court below by the order impugned in the appeal declined to allow the interlocutory application filed for the same relief as sought herein viz., an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring or mortgaging the suit schedule properties which are admittedly in their possession at present on the ground that the disputed questions of title as between the plaintiffs and the defendants fall for consideration in the final adjudication of the suit and that no prima facie case in favour of either of the parties is discernable at the interlocutory stage. Learned counsel for the appellants states that it has been brought to the notice of the court below by Exs.A39 to A43 that the respondents have alienated portions of the suit schedule property and are also proposing to alienate further; the property is in lis in O.S.No.11 of 2010 and that if no interlocutory order is passed against the respondents, the property would be further flittered away and third party rights would be created. In such an event, it would be difficult to execute the decree even in the event of the appellants succeed in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18 would state that no steps whatsoever are being pursued by the respondents to alienate the properties. From the facts and circumstances discussed above and in view of the assertion on behalf of the respondents, we consider it appropriate to allow the appeal. Pending disposal of the O.S.No.11 of 2010, the respondents shall be injuncted from alienating, transferring, mortgaging or disposing of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.11 of 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 10th November 2010 lmv