IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2010 Between: Saradhi Venkata Seshadri Rao and another Rep. By its Managing Director, Radha Krishna Street, West Marredpally, Secunderabad and others ..... APPELLANTS AND Padala Indira and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.07.2010 dismissing I.A. No. 503 of 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from alienating ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to the third parties, pending the suit O.S. No. 9 of 2010. The petitioners herein have filed the above suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into five equal shares and to allot two such shares to them and for future mesne profits. It is their case that the respondents 1 to 3 and their mother were in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and the third respondent was managing the properties and giving them the produce from out of the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands but subsequently developed an ill-will to grab the properties. Hence, they filed the suit for partition and along with the suit, they filed the above application seeking to restrain the respondents herein from alienating the plaint schedule properties to third parties, pending disposal of the suit. The court below, though granted ad-interim injunction initially, dismissed the application vacating the ad interim injunction granted earlier. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed inter alia contending that the prayer in the interlocutory application is only to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties and if the prayer is negatived, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that Exs.B-2 and B-3, Gift Settlement Deeds dated 22.2.2002 and 5.6.2003 respectively, which are said to have been executed by the mother of appellants in favour of the respondents with respect of the properties obtained by her under Ex.B-1, registered partition deed dated 1.3.2000, are fraudulent transactions and that they have not been acted upon. It is further contended that the appellants’ mother did not gift the properties, as alleged by the respondents. It is further contended that since the respondents developed an idea of grabbing the properties and since they stopped sharing the produce from the plaint schedule lands, they filed the present suit. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to Exs. B-2 and B-3, gift settlement deeds executed by the mother of the appellants in respect of the properties which she obtained under Ex.B-1, registered partition deed in favour of the third respondent, the third respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the appellants have no right whatsoever and, therefore, the court below has rightly dismissed the application and, as such, no interference is warranted in the order impugned. The relation between the appellants and the respondents is not in dispute. Schedule ‘A’ are dry lands while schedule ‘B’ are wet lands and Schedule ‘C’ is jewellery items. The court below on scrutiny of the documents Exs. B-1 to B-7, filed on behalf of the respondents, has dismissed the application vacating ad interim injunction granted earlier. Since the suit filed by the appellants for partition is pending, we deem it appropriate to protect the interest of the appellants. In case the respondents alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, the respondents shall protect the interest of the appellants by depositing a sum of Rs.3,18,000/- towards the share of the appellants to the credit of the suit, after depositing such amount only, any alienations can take place. The amount, in case deposited, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit and it shall be subject to the final result of the suit. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _____________________ Justice P.Swaroop Reddy. October 26, 2010 MAS.