HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 4334 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision is directed against the order dated 09.02.2009 passed in CMA No. 82 of 2008 on the file of the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that originally, the owner of the subject land was one B.Sathi Reddy. One Samala Kista Reddy was the protected tenant in respect of Ac.0.34 gts. of landing Sy.No. 404 situated at Nagaram village, Dammaiguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. According to Mr. Mohd.Imrankhan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the rights of the protected tenant have been declared by the tenancy Tribunal and ultimately confirmed. The 1st respondent herein namely, Badam Anitha claims to be the daughter of the said Samala Kista Reddy and according to her, her father had gifted this property in her favour by virtue of gift deed dated 9.3.2001. It appears that the alleged B.Sathi Reddy or the persons claiming through Sathi Reddy were interfering with the possession of Samala Kista Reddy and therefore he filed a suit in O.S. No. 44 of 1991 seeking declaration of title and injunction against B.Sathi Reddy and others and the said suit had been decreed. Challenging the same, the petitioner, who traced her title through Sathi Reddy filed AS No. 1996 of 2000 and obtained status-quo orders on 1.8.2000. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein seems to have obtained gift deed from her father. It is the settled legal position that tenancy rights are heritable. Therefore, even in the absence of the gift deed, the legal heirs of the said Kista Reddy are deemed to have inherited rights in the land. 5. As the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent herein filed OS No. 66 of 2007 seeking permanent injunction and also IA No. 214 of 2007 seeking interim injunction against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein also seems to have filed another application in IA No. 912 of 2007 in OS No. 66 of 2007 (or in OS No. 266 of 2007) on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. The learned Junior Civil Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed both the applications. 6. According to learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, there are categorical findings given by the court below that the 1st respondent has been in possession of the property. It is also submitted that the vendors of the petitioner filed AS No. 1996 of 2000. This court while granting status-quo orders, declined to suspend the Judgment and Decree in the said appeal. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the leaner Junior Civil Judge, in IA No. 217 of 2007 in OS No. 66 of 2007, the 1st respondent herein filed CMA No. 82 of 2008 before the Court of VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge and the learned Senior Civil Judge, having considered the entire material and taking into consideration of the fact that this court has refused to suspend the Judgment and decree in OS No. 44 of 1991 not only granted status-quo, orders, but rather explained the status quo orders. The learned Senior Civil Judge clarified that the status-quo order indicates that the father of the 1st respondent herein to remain in possession of the property. It is also observed that the petitioner herein and their vendors, who claims to have derived title from Sathi Reddy would got no title for suit schedule property. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and restrained the respondents herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this court granted status-quo orders in CMP No. 13357 of 2000 in AS No. 1996 of 2000, the lower court is not justified in granting injunction order against the petitioner herein. The main contention of Mr. Mod. Imrankhan is that the rights of the protected tenant have been crystalised in OS No. 44 of 1991 even prior to that by the tenancy authorities and ones it is clear that the father of the 1st respondent herein has been declared as protected tenant no one could have purchased any property from the original owner, Sathi Reddy and whatever alienations made by Samala Kista Reddy they are illegal, null and void and in view of the same, the petitioner herein cannot get any title. It is also submitted that taking advantage of the status-quo orders and in spite of his protest and taking advantage of delay in disposal of the matters before the courts, the petitioner and their men herein forceably entered into a portion of the land and made some constructions. It is also his submission that in the above circumstances, his client has amended the suit seeking mandatory injunction for demolition of the constructions illegally made therein. 8. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is maintainable ? 9. Since A.S.No. 1996 of 2000 has been pending, it may not be desirable to discuss the merits and demerits of the case at this stage. But, however, one thing is clear when it is contended that the rights of the protected tenant have been crystalised and the original protected tenant has been declared as owner of the property, the validity of the subsequent alienation requires a serious consideration. When this court declined to suspend the Judgment and decree passed in AS No. 1996 of 2000 and granted status-quo orders, no one has any right to change the physical features of the property. 10. Order of Status-quo does not mean that anybody can enter into the land or make any constructions or change the physical features of the property. Status-quo means even the physical features of the property should be maintained as it is. It does not mean that the person in possession of the property can be disposed of by virtue of the status-quo order. Status-quo order means the person in possession of the property as on the date of issuing status-quo order should be allowed to continue his possession and his possession has to be protected. In fact, lot of confusion is being created by the orders of status-quo and the authorities have been interpreting the same according to their own whims and fancies. In fact, it is desirable that the courts while granting status-quo should clarify as to who is in possession of the property in dispute. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and it is clear that there are no merits in the above revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. However, since the appeal appears to be still pending before this court, I consider it just and reasonable to direct both the parties not to make any further constructions or change the physical features of the property pending disposal of AS No. 1996 of 2000. However, the lower court is directed to dispose of the suits pending before it as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 03-02-2011. Mjl/*