HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.475 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent filed O.S No.235 of 2001 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal for the reliefs of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed on 31-12-2008. The 1st respondent filed A.S. No.2 of 2009 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. He has filed I.A No.76 of 2009 under Order – XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The appellants, who figured as respondents 3, 4, 5,7, 10 and 11 in the I.A., opposed the application. Through order, dated 29-04-2009, the lower appellate Court allowed the I.A. and granted temporary injunction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for the reliefs of declaration of title, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. There is some apparent conflict in the two reliefs, viz., mandatory and perpetual injunction. The occasion to seek relief of mandatory injunction would arise only when the defendant in such a suit is found be in possession, may be wrongfully, and he had made construction. When such is the case, the question of seeking perpetual injunction in respect of that very item of property poses several complications. It is a different matter if the reliefs of perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction are prayed for in relation to different items of property. The very fact that the appellants have made construction and that a prayer is made in the suit for removal of the construction discloses that they are in possession thereof. It is not known as to whether the relief of perpetual injunction is claimed in respect of a different property. Be that as it may, the parties may be required to maintain status – quo till the disposal of the appeal. 5. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of directing that; a) The order of injunction passed by the lower appellate Court in I.A. No.76 of 2009 shall not apply to that portion of the property in respect of which the relief of mandatory injunction is sought. b) Neither the appellants nor the respondents shall be entitled to add anything to the existing structures. c) The lower appellate Court shall decide the appeal by the end of October 2011. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J April 18, 2011. KTL