IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CMA NO.1233 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Padma, W/o.B. Kailashnath ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Smt. Prameela Bai, W/o.Late Karan Singh & Others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CMA No.1233 of 2008 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in suit OS No.654 of 2007 and the suit was filed for partition of the suit properties, scheduled as ‘A to F’. The plaintiff-appellant herein filed the IA No.6200 of 2007 seeking interim injunction against the respondents from alienating or creating thirty party interest in respect of ‘A to F’ schedule property, pending dispose of the suit. By the impugned order, the Court below, having found prima facie case in favour of the appellant herein granted interim injunction only in respect of properties in ‘A, C, E & F’ and reused to grant any order in respect of ‘B & D’ schedule properties. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that to deny the share of the appellant, respondents 1 to 5 have sold and transferred ‘B’ schedule property to respondent no.6 under two different sale deeds claiming themselves alone to be the legal heirs of Karan Singh, though the appellant herein is also entitled for 1/6th in that property. It is further submitted that the 6th respondent construed flats and if injunction is not granted against the property in B & D schedule, the appellant would be put to irreparable loss. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the 6th respondent is a bona- fide purchaser and having purchased the land in question from respondents from 1 to 5, he made constructions, ground plus one floor by obtaining permission from GHMC and made further constructions on the said building for which he applied for regularization under the scheme of regularization. Learned counsel also submitted that 6th respondent is ready give any undertaking to secure 1/6th share of the appellant and he made constructions by leaving open about 70 sq. yards of open land. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff and the counsel learned for the respondents, inasmuch as the rights of the parties are not determined as the suit for partition is pending, to safeguard the interest of the parties, we direct the 6th respondent to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lacs) within a period of one month from today. The bank guarantee shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit. 4. The CMA is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _______________________ P. Swaroop Reddy, J Dated: 20th September, 2010 Nrg. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CMA No.1233 of 2008 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) 20-9-2010