THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 764 of 2010 Judgment: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.96 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule property, along with I.A.No.2611 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to grant ad interim injunction against the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the respective individual portions in the premises bearing No.20-1-140, situated at Puranapul, Gollakhidki, Hyderabad. The said I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court on 23.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Respondent No.1 is the father and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the brothers of the appellants. The appellants state that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property, whereas the respondents state that it is the self acquired property of the first respondent, who purchased the same from his mother, by name, Smt Ramulamma, under a registered sale deed-Ex.B1 and developed the same with the money out of his savings and retirement benefits. Appellant No.1 filed O.S.No.1774 of 2003 against his father i.e., respondent No.1, and brothers for declaration that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.2060 of 2003 before the same Court for cancellation of the gift-cum-settlement deed vide document No.1093/2000, dated 12.10.2000, and for injunction. Through a common judgment, dated 28.11.2008, the said Court dismissed O.S.No.1774 of 2003 and decreed O.S.No.2060 of 2003 as prayed for. Against the said judgment, an appeal was preferred and the same is pending. Respondent No.1 also filed O.S.No.2590 of 2004 for eviction of appellant No.2 from the portion occupied by him in the suit schedule property and the same was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant No.2 preferred an appeal and the same is pending. 4. Inasmuch as O.S.No.1774 of 2003 filed for declaration by appellant No.1 was dismissed and as in O.S.No.2590 of 2004, appellant No.2 was ordered to be evicted from the portion occupied by him in the suit schedule property and had not obtained any stay in the appeal filed by him, the trial Court held that the appellants are not entitled to any interim injunction over the suit schedule property and accordingly, dismissed the I.A., by the order impugned. 5. In view of the fact that the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated by the trial Court in O.S.No.96 of 2010 filed for partition and as the appeals filed by the parties against the judgments passed in O.S.Nos.1774 and 2060 of 2003 and O.S.No.2590 of 2004 are pending, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned rejecting the relief of injunction as sought by the appellants. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:27.09.2010. SJ