THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.328 of 2009 05.3.2010 Between: Smt.Cheruvukommu Bharatamma, D/o.late Aiela Anjaiah alias Nemuri Anjaiah W/o.Sri C.Sriramulu … Appellant AND Smt.Aiela Laxmamma alias Nemuri Laxmamma, W/o.late Aiela Anjaiah and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.328 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Appellant is the plaintiff. First respondent is mother, respondents 2 to 4 are brothers and fifth respondent is her son. She filed the suit being O.S.No.537 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The suit was filed for partition of the schedule property. Along with the suit, she filed I.A. No.1654 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC), for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the schedule property. The same having been dismissed by the Court below by impugned order dated 10.11.2008, present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. The case of appellant is that the schedule property admeasuring Acs.10.27 gts., in survey Nos.520, 521, 523, 524 and 525 situated at Histapur village of Medchal Mandal, is joint family property, which is self-acquired property of Anjaiah, father of appellant and respondents 2 to 4. After death of their father in 1988, all the legal heirs became entitled to the schedule property. Defendants 1 to 4 entered into development agreement in respect of the schedule property with defendants 5 and 6, ignoring appellant’s demand for partition. Sixth respondent is likely to alienate the property by developing it as house sites. The injunction petition was opposed by defendants, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiff’s share of Acs.1.05 gts., in survey No.521 was given to fifth respondent and that the appellant is not entitled for any share. The Court below accepted this plea and refused to grant injunction. This Court on 31.3.2009 ordered interim injunction while admitting the appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Though notice is served on respondents 5 and 6, none appears for them and they are set ex parte. There is no dispute that the appellant is daughter of first respondent, sister of respondents 2 to 4 and mother of fifth respondent. It is also no dispute that the schedule property is self- acquired property of Anjaiah. The dispute is, however, with regard to the question whether respondents 1 to 4 having given part of the property to fifth respondent, can refute the right of appellant to seek partition of property. This is a triable issue. If ultimately the appellant succeeds in the suit and the property in the hands of respondents 1 to 4 and 6 is sold away, it is very difficult to work out equities. Therefore, we deem it proper to continue the ad interim injunction passed by this Court on 31.3.2009 and direct the Court below to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, excluding Court vacation period. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) March 05, 2010 YS