- (1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/1 st respondent/ 1st defendant in LA. No. 276/2007 in O. S. No. 206/2007 on the file of Principal Senior civil Judge, Vijayawada. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs/petitioners in the said LA. No. 276/2007 in O. S. No. 206/2007 and these minors, represented by their guardian and next friend, the grand father, instituted the said suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3 rd share in the plaint schedule property, for recovery of mesne profits and other appropriate reliefs. The 3rd respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal is the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant in LA. No. 276/2007 in O. S. No. 206/2007 aforesaid.
(2.) THE learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada, after framing the Points for consideration at Para-5 discussed the documentary evidence Exs. A-1 to A-6 and ex. B-1, recorded certain reasons at Para-7 and ultimately allowed the application granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/ plaintiffs in the said suit till the disposal of the suit and both the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Hence the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
(3.) SRI V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and also the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, vijayawada and the counters filed by the respective parties and the stand taken by the parties and would maintain that it is an admitted fact that the petition schedule property had been purchased by the appellant for valid consideration under registered sale deed dated 23. 10. 1991 and from that time onwards, the appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Counsel also would point out that unfortunately this portion of the property is just adjacent to the main road, but however the Counsel would maintain that only a portion of the property had been purchased out of the total extent of the property available with the 3rd respondent/2nd defendant in the suit. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the appellant/1 st defendant and the 3rd respondent/2nd defendant are brothers and the partition also is not in serious dispute. The learned Counsel also would submit that as can be seen from the material available on record, in the light of the subsequent criminal proceedings, this litigation had been thought of and only with a view to put the appellant into trouble, this suit had been instituted as though the plaintiffs are entitled to the respective shares. The learned counsel also specifically pointed out that the 3rd respondent herein, the father of respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs in the suit, had sold only an extent of 119. 6 sq. yards out of 681 sq. yards which had fallen to his share and even if the stand taken by the plaintiffs needs serious consideration, it is needless to say that as father, the 3rd respondent is entitled to dispose of the l/3rd share which would be far more than the extent which had been already alienated by him and even in this view of the matter, the trial Court could have arrived at a conclusion that no strong prima facie case had been made out by the respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/plaintiffs for obtaining such temporary injunction which they had prayed for. The Counsel also pointed out that the registered sale deed was executed on 23. 10. 1991 and for sufficiently a long time having kept quiet, in the light of the subsequent events, surprisingly this litigation had been thought of only with a view to see that the 1st defendant/1st respondent/appellant in the present civil miscellaneous appeal, is prevented from proceeding with the proposed constructions. The Counsel also would maintain that even if any improvements are made by the appellant, the same will be subject to the result of the suit. Even otherwise, in the light of the fact that only an extent of 119. 6 sq. yards out of 681sq. yards had been purchased even by the sale deed dated 23. 10. 1991, always the parties would be at liberty to work out the equities, if any, even in the event of the respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs succeeding in the said suit. Further, the Counsel also pointed out that on a careful reading of the averments made in the plaint or the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear that no serious allegations as such had been made as against the father and this would go to show that the litigation itself is a speculative one which had been thought of for extraneous reasons and with ulterior motive to harass the appellant.;