P LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. T MADHU BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dated 17.07.2013 in I.A.No.3 of 2013 in O.S.No.7 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

(2.) The appellants herein filed O.S.No.7 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their possession of the property bearing Municipal Door No.18-8-39C comprised in Sy.No.2/2 situated at Ward No.18, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati Municipal Corporation.

(3.) It is the pleaded case of the appellants that one T. Munaswamy Naidu, paternal grandfather of respondents 1 to 4, sold 0.28 cents of land, forming part of suit schedule land, to one T.G. Venkatarama Naidu, under Ex.P1 registered sale deed dated 29.04.1981, that the said Venkatarama Naidu, in turn, sold 200 square yards to one R. Madhura Vani under Ex.P2 registered sale deed dated 09.12.1983 and that he has gifted the remaining extent of land to his daughter and son-in-law under Ex.P3 gift deed dated 01.06.1996. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the entire suit schedule property under Exs.P6 and P4- registered sale deeds dated 10.07.2000 and 30.06.2004 executed by the daughter and son-in-law of T.G. Venkatarama Naidu and Madhura Vani respectively. It is the further pleaded case of the appellants that since the date of their purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, wherein a nursery is being run, that an old structure is in existence and that the property is surrounded by a compound wall on all four sides. That the father of respondents 1 to 4, namely; T. Krishnama Naidu filed O.S.No.61 of 1981, seeking partition of 71 items including the suit schedule property, and the said suit was dismissed on 29.08.1988, holding that there was prior partition. Against the same, A.S.No.200 of 1989 was filed before this Court. This Court disposed of the said appeal, by judgment and decree dated 28.12.2007, whereby this Court has remanded the case to the lower Court for ascertaining as to the items of the properties which were available for partition on the date of filing of the suit. After remand, the trial Court has passed a preliminary decree in respect of 45 items as against 71 items sought for partition and directed that the property shall be divided into 480 shares and respondents 1 to 4 were declared as eligible to claim 225/480th share in all the 45 items. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the other members of the family who were parties to the suit filed A.S.No.810 of 2010 before this Court, wherein an interim order not to pass final decree has been passed and the same is in force. After passing of the preliminary decree, respondents 1 to 4 have sold their purported share of properties in favour of respondents 5 to 8 under Exs.P13 and P14 registered sale deeds dated 14.12.2012 and 15.12.2012 respectively. The appellants have alleged that in pursuance of the said sale deeds, the purchasers have tried to interfere with their possession. Therefore, they have filed the suit for injunction. Pending the suit, they have also filed I.A.No.3 of 2013 for interim injunction.