THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No :611 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 17th June, 2010 in I.A. No. 17 of 2010 in O.S. No. 201 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 201 of 2008 for partition. In that suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 17 of 2001 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. seeking ex-parte interim injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from alienating the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the main suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the respondents-plaintiffs have stated that they are the sons of Vattam Mohd. Shamshuddin through the first wife; whereas the petitioners are the children of the second wife. Their father was running a business in the name of Indian Leather Company. Further the plaint schedule property was purchased by their father and he died intestate on 16.5.2001. Subsequently, his wives also died intestate on 11.6.2005 and February, 2008 and hence their shares were devolved upon them. It is also stated that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to 50/240th share and plaintiff No.3 is entitled to 40/240th share. Though they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property, they asked for their share. However, the appellants refused to consider their demand. They also came to know that the appellants entered into an agreement with some builders for demolition of existing structure and construction of a new building in the plaint schedule property. Hence, they filed the suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property and if the appellants are not restrained from alienating the property, they will suffer irreparable loss. While opposing the claim of the respondents, the second appellant filed a counter affidavit denying the various allegations levelled by the respondents, which was also adopted by the appellants 4 and 5. The 6th appellant also filed a counter affidavit, which was adopted by the appellants 1 and 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second appellant, he has stated that the Indian Leather Company was started by their father with the amount brought by their mother and not with the investments of their own father. It is stated that the petition schedule property was bequeathed in favour of their mother by their father through HIBANAMA dated 16.6.1999 and from then onwards, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. They also stated that their father died intestate leaving them as sole legal heirs. They also denied the contention of the respondents that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. They further stated that their father owed an amount of Rs. 76,878/- to them towards interest, for which, the respondents filed O.S. No. 871 of 1996 and pursuant to the order passed in the E.P. filed in the said suit, they paid the said amount. They further stated that the property in Islampet bearing D. No.12-2-2007 NTC 131 was purchased by their father in the year 1969 and 1974 and bequeathed in favour of their mother through Hibanama dated 16.6.1999. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. with a direction to the appellants not to alienate the properties during the pendency of the suit proceedings. Hence, the present appeal. Admittedly, the respondents filed the suit seeking the relief of partition and if the appellants alienate the property during the pendency of the suit, the respondents would suffer irreparable loss and the very purpose of the filing the suit would be defeated. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 18th August, 2010 ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J pnb