D. NARASIMHALU NAIDU @ D.N. NAIDU, S/O. LATE DORESWAMY NAIDU Vs. SMT. SEEMA, W/O. RAJU, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the 3rd Defendant in the suit, questioning an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge, whereby, the 4th Defendant -Spl.LAO, was restrained from disbursing the compensation amount for acquisition of the suit property in favour of the other Defendants. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the suit.

(2.) MATERIAL facts of the case for the purpose of consideration and disposal of this appeal are:

(3.) DEFENDANT 3/Appellant filed written statement, wherein it has been contended that, the suit property is not an agricultural land, the same was converted for non -agricultural purpose on 8.2.2005 and that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 16.4.2005, which was executed by the 1st Defendant along with his family properties as per the family tree produced by them and that the Plaintiffs are utter strangers to the suit property, since their names were not reflected in the family tree made available at the time of said sale of suit property in his favour. He has contended that, the suit property is the absolute property of the 1st Defendant, having been acquired by him pursuant to a partition effected amongst his brothers on 1.10.1989. According to him, other family members of 1st Defendant joined in conveying the suit property in his favour on 16.4:2005 and hence, the suit is not maintainable. It has been contended that, the Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants are not in possession of the suit property, the Court fee paid is insufficient and he sought for dismissal of the suit.