IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3373 of 2011 Between: Gampa Srinivas … Petitioner And: Gampa Balaiah & 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3373 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2001 in CMA No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said appeal ﬁled by the respondents herein, was allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.12.2010 in IA No.567 of 2010 in OS No.117 of 2010 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioner herein for temporary injunction, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein ﬁled suit for partition against his brothers-R.1 and R.2 and sister-R.3. According to the plaintiﬀ, suit property belongs to his father Rajaiah and after his death, all four children i.e., petitioner and respondents, became entitled for equal shares as legal heirs. The petitioner therefore claims 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property. The respondents ﬁled written statement, contesting the sui t , inter-alia pleading that there was earlier oral partition in the year 1999 and in the said partition, the petitioner/plaintiﬀ was given 1/3rd share in the suit site and respondents 1 and 2 herein were allotted 1/3rd share each, as their sister-R.3 who was married, did not claim any share in the property, but opted to take cash and the same was paid to her. 4. The question as to whether or not the alleged oral partition is true and whether or not the plaintiﬀ is entitled for any partition of the suit property and claim of 1/4th share therein are all matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence. 5. The petitioner ﬁled IA No.567 of 2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the construction of the house in the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 herein opposed the same on the ground that they have been making the construction in the portion of the site allotted to them in the earlier partition in the year 1999, after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from the municipality. The trial Court by order dated 22.12.2010 granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred appeal in CMA No.2 of 2011. By impugned judgment, the learned District Judge, allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction granted by the trial Court. 6. It is not disputed that the construction of the house by the respondents has reached an advanced stage. The petitioner has not raised any objection when the construction has commenced and made progress. It is not as though the respondents have been making construction on the entirety of the suit site. It is speciﬁcally pleaded by the respondents that the construction of the house is conﬁned only to the extent of the site allotted to their share in the earlier partition. In fact, as per the alleged earlier partition, the petitioner is allotted 1/3rd share, whereas he is now claiming only 1/4th share. In the event of petitioner succeeding in the suit, his interest pertaining to 1/4th share can certainly be safeguarded and secured by adjusting the equities at the time of ﬁnal decree proceedings. The petitioner therefore cannot seek to block the construction of the house by the respondents in a portion of the suit site, especially, when the said construction has reached advanced stage. It is not as though the suit site is being subjected to any acts of waste or damage. The construction of the house over the suit site only enhances the value of entire site and therefore, constitutes an improvement. When the construction being made only in a portion of the site and rest of the site is left open for partition, it is neither just nor equitable to stop the construction of the house at this stage at the instance of the petitioner, who is claiming only 1/4th share. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment allowing the appeal and setting aside the injunction granted by the trial Court is therefore not liable to be interfered with. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The status quo order granted earlier, stands vacated. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.11.2011 bss