JITTA LAKSHMAMMA Vs. JITTA RAGHAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2016 in O.S.No.194 of 2016 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

(2.) The facts that led to filing of this CMA are that the appellants are wife and son of late J.Ram Reddy and are the joint owners and possessors of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties along with respondents 1 to 5 in Sy.Nos.9 to 15 situated at Thummalkunta Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having inherited through their common ancestor late Yella Reddy. The said late Yella Reddy got half share out of the land in Sy.Nos.9 to 15 in an oral partition effected among himself and late Yetta Reddy. According to the appellants, as per mutual family understanding among the sons of late Yella Reddy, the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 5 were enjoying the ownership rights and possession duly cultivating their land and were enjoying the benefits as per their shares. The appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 5 converted the land that fell to the share of the family through their common ancestor late Yella Reddy into plots and alienated most of the plots by joining together except the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, which continued to be the joint property of appellants as well as respondents 1 to 5. The respondents in collusion with each other got created concocted, false and fabricated documents without the consent and knowledge of the appellants with a mala fide intention to grab the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and mortgaged the fabricated title deeds in favour of respondent No.7. Respondents 5 and 6 executed a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, in favour of respondent No.8. Therefore, the appellants filed O.S.No.194 of 2016 for partition and separate possession and in the said suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.155 of 2016 seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or changing the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. The Court below declined to grant the relief sought for and dismissed the application. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellants.

(3.) Heard Sri A.Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4; Sri K. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6; learned counsel for respondent No.8 and perused the record.