IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.203 OF 2006 Date:10-03-2011 Between:- Sahebzada Mir Muzaffar Ali Khan .. Appellant/petitioner/plaintiff And Quderat Ali and others .. Respondents/Respondents/defendants JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against order dated 02-12-2005 delivered in I.A.No.1366 of 2005 in O.S.No.2036 of 2005 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, petition filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the petition schedule property bearing H.No.1210 (old), New No.21-6-265 admeasuring 299.22 sq.yards situated at Babri Alwa, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad, was dismissed. 2. The appellant is the petitioner whereas the respondents are the respondents in the Interlocutory Application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The petitioner’s claim is as follows. He is the absolute owner and possessor of the petition schedule property, being the grandson of late HEH VII Nizam, who was the Chairman of Private Estate Sarfekhas Mubarak, who was the original owner of the property. The respondent No.1, being his servant, was permitted to reside in the petition schedule property without paying any rent. As the petition schedule property became dilapidated, the petitioner went and requested the respondent No.1 to vacate the property to take necessary measures and then found that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were residing in the property and on enquiries, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 informed him that they had purchased the property under a registered sale deed. Further, the respondent No.5 also made a claim over the property. Hence, the suit is filed for the cancellation of the sale deed and recovery of the possession of the property and the application is filed for granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property. 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner and further admitting that originally, the property belonged to Nizam and Chairman of the Private Estate Committee and further claiming that one S.N.Reddy, Register Power of Attorney of the Nizam, sold the property to one Smt Badarunnisa Begum under registered sale deed dated 21-11-1966 vide document No.3041/1966 and Badarunnisa Begum sold the property to one Qudarat Ali under registered sale deed dated 27-07-1988 vide document No.442/1988 and Qudarat Ali sold that property to them and the respondent No.4 on 27-01-1998 vide document No.99/1998 and accordingly, they got mutated their names in the concerned municipal records, which factors the petitioner has been aware of. Ultimately, respondent Nos.2 and 3 pleaded to dismiss the application. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 5 remained ex parte and none appeared for the respondent No.4. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, Exs.A-1 to A-5, viz., General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in the name of his G.P.A. dated 31- 08-2005, certified copy of sale deed dated 27-01-1998, Town Survey Register, Assessment Register of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and rough plan were marked and on behalf of the contesting respondents, Exs.B-1 to B-4 viz., registered sale deeds dated 27-01-1998 and 27-07-1988, General Power of Attorney in Urdu, and Translation of Ex.B-3 were marked. No witnesses were examined on either side. 7. Examining the material available on record, it is observed by the lower Court that there is no dispute that the property belonged to late Nizam-VII but the petitioner failed to establish his relationship with HEH VII Nizam or with the property and hence, he would not be entitled to the relief prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. The petitioner has to establish that he has got prima facie case and balance of convenience and unless the relief prayed is granted, he will suffer irreparable loss. It is also a well established principle of law that it is enough if the first ingredient and one of the remaining two ingredients are established to grant the relief. 9. Then, it is to be seen as to whether the order passed by the lower Court is proper or not and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. 10. The petitioner has to file relevant documents to establish his link with the HEH VII Nizam and also his link with the suit property. None of the documents filed upholds his claim. Without any prima facie material, he cannot be granted the relief prayed for. The lower Court properly considered the matter and there is no reason to interfere with its order. Status quo order was passed on 30-10-2006 so far as the property is concerned and in the result, that status quo order is to be vacated. 11. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial of the suit has been going on in the lower Court and a direction may be given to the lower Court to expedite the disposal of the case. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of confirming the order dated 02-12-2005 made in I.A.No.1366 of 2005 in O.S.No.2036 of 2005 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with a direction to the lower Court to dispose of the suit within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order taking into consideration the material available including the evidence to be recorded independently and uninfluenced by the observations made above, which are based upon the material available now before the Court only. There shall be no order as to costs and the status quo order passed earlier in the matter is vacated. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 10th March, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.203 OF 2006 Date:10-03-2011 AMD