THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3466 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.331 of 2009 in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of plot No.18, Ward No.2, Block No.3, admeasuring 180 square yards, which is part of a layout comprising of the land in Survey Nos.49 to 51 of Bholakpur Revenue Village, Kachibowli, Ministers Road, Secunderabad. It was pleaded that the vendor of respondents 1 to 3, by name Durga Singh, was the original owner of a large extent of land in the survey numbers referred to above and that the competent authority has sanctioned the layout. It was pleaded that plot No.18 remained under the ownership of Durga Singh and after his death, respondents 1 to 3 have succeeded to the same. An agreement of sale was executed in respect of plot No.18 in favour of the fourth respondent. Their grievance is that the petitioners are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property, claiming to be the owners of plot No.36 of the layout. The respondents have also filed I.A.No.895 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with the same averments as in the plaint. The petitioners opposed the I.A. by stating that the respondents are trying to encroach upon their plot under the guise of injunction. Through its order, dated 25.06.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.23 of 2009 in the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The C.M.A. was dismissed on 13.07.2009. Hence this revision. Sri N.Subba Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that Durga Singh himself sold plot No.36 in favour of one Zakir Hussain in the year 1995 and thereafter, it changed the hands and ultimately, it was purchased by the petitioners, through a sale deed, dated 28.08.2004. He submits that the Courts below did not appreciate the fact that there was a change in the layout and that the respondents are trying to encroach into plot No.36. Sri J.Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners never claimed any right or interest over plot No.36 and there is absolutely no basis for the allegations of the petitioners. Before the trial Court, the respondents filed Exs.A1 to A7 and the petitioners filed Exs.B1 to B7. The suit was filed for the limited relief of perpetual injunction in respect of plot No.18 with the following description: “All that part and parcel of the Plot No.18, Ward No.2, Block No.3, admeasuring 180 square yards in Survey Nos.49 to 51, situated at D.V. Cooperative Housing Society, D.V. Colony, Bholakpur Village, Kachibowli, Ministers Road, Secunderabad, and bounded as follows: North: Plot No.9, 30 feet in length. South: 30 feet wide road, 30 feet in length. East: Plot no.18 (part), 54’-0” in length. West: Plot No.19, 54’-0” in length.” The respondents traced their title directly to the original owner and no transactions intervened. The plot of land purchased by the petitioners in the same layout is with the following description. “All that residential premises bearing No.2-3-531/15, constructed plinth area of 204 square feet together with land of 186.67 square yards or 156.05 share meters constructed on plot No.36, in survey Nos.50 and 51, situated at Kachi Colony, in the rare of Nallagutta and Southern side of Komat Colony, now known as D.V. Colony, P.G. Road, Secunderabad and bounded on: North: Neighbours house (Old H.No.2-3-520/14). South: 30’ wide road. East: H.No.2-3-531/14, Plot No.28. West: New Assigned No.2-3-531/P/19/A, Plot No.34. A comparison of the number as well as the boundaries of the two plots referred above, discloses that there is absolutely no overlap. Neither the respondents are claiming any right vis-à-vis plot No.36 nor the petitioners are asserting any right vis-à-vis plot No.18. Further, there is no possibility for there being any overlapping of these plots, since they are not in the immediate neighbourhood. Though it is asserted by the petitioners that there was change and alteration in the layout, the respondents denied the same. Be that as it may, as long as there is no claim against each other as regards the same property, there should not be any difficulty in granting temporary injunction. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court examined the matter in detail with reference to the relevant facts and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. However, it needs to be clarified that the respondents shall not be entitled to take or assume possession of plot No.36 under the guise of injunction granted in respect of plot No.18. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, duly clarifying that the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court shall be the one, strictly in respect of plot No.18 and the same does not confer any right upon the respondents to proceed against or interfere with the land in Survey No.36. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit. In case any application is filed either by the petitioners or the respondents for appointment of commissioner, the trial Court shall examine the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2009 kdl