{' }t v. '1. K. Vijaya Laxmi

Petition rrrder rlrder XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan:es stated in the affidavit filed in support of t re petition, the High Court m ay b,: pleased to grant Ad-interim injunctron restraining the Respondents/D ef3 nd ernts from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of ttrr: petitioners/ plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the rn:sent CIvlA. SIJIT SCHEDULE All that of the rouse Plot Nos. 101 & 102 in Sy.No.121 (Part) admeasuring 656 Sq.Yards, :; tuatr:,C at Kukatpally village and Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District ha'r ng tl-r,= following boundaries: North . 6Cr'feet wide road South : Plot No 103 East : Lz nd in liy. No. 121-part West : 31 fee: wide Road lA NO: 'l OF 20',15 Petition u nder Siection '151 CPC praying that in the circumsta nces stated in the affidavit filei n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date ,r' hearing of the above CMA 631 of 2024 for trre purpose of hearing. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A. Ananda Chary Counsel for the Respondent No.s: Sri A. Venkatesh, Senior Coun:;el appearing on behalf of Sri S. Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents No.1,3 & 4: None Appeared The Court mader the rollowing: ORDER ! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.M.A. No.631 of 2024 ORDER (per Hon'ble Srt Justice T.Vinod Kumar) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.Venkatesh, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on beha-lf of Sri S.Srinivas, learned counsel for iespondent No.5, and perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dt.II.l1.2O24 in IA.No.473 of 2024 in OS.No.8O of 2024 on the h1e of the Senior Crvil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal Malkaj grri District at Kukatpally. ,'

3. The appeilants krerein are the plaintiffs in the above suit ftled. The appellalts had hled the sard suit seeking declaration that plot No.lO3 in survey No. 121-part of Ktlkatpally Village, being claimed by the defendants as against the suit schedule property i.e., plot Nos.101 & 102 in survey No.121- part of Kukatpalli Village & Municipality, belonging to the plarntrffs, does not exist ald to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule plot No.101 & to2.

4. The appellants further contend that pending consideration of the aJoresaid suit frled by them, tlley had frled the underlying interlocutory application uiz.,1A.No.473 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for grant of injunction, and that the Court below dismissed the said application without appreciating the title of the appellants to the subject property has been afhrmed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.549 of 1996 as confrrmed in q 2 AS.No.97 :t 2(t00, further conhrmed by the withdrawal of th: Second Appeal uide SA.lr r,.481. of 2005, dt.I4.O8.2023.

5. The aplr:llar-rts further contend that notwithstandir rg the aforesaid orders, tlLc li:s1-ondents, in partrcular the Sth respondent, is proceeding with the construcri( n on thc basis of the municipal permission o lrtained, and the Court bel:!^.haci crred in not injuncting the respondents from proceeding wrth the cons1ructi.,, thereby interfering with the possession o. the appella,ts over the st tlect property.

6. Pet contr\ lcarned Senior Counsel appeanng on b.:half of the Sth responderrr wori d submit that since, the appellants by their o.r,l admission in the plainr filecl in oS.No.Bo of 2024 admit to the fact or existence of plot No.103 b1 sho,,,irrg the samc as one of the boundarics, theSr c:rnnot plead non_ existence :f plot No. 103. 7 . Learned ilenior Counsel would further contend tha 1 the suit ulde O.S.No.549 of 1996 hled by the 1"t respondent,s r,endor was only an injunction suir simplicitor and the withdrawal of secor:,d apped uide SA.No.487 cf 2(115, during the year 2023 was on account of :he plot of land being sold lt'r rhr: 2",1 respondent herein in favour of the 1srresi.,ondent herein. S Lca:recL Scnior counsel wourd further contencr that or the appellalts herein inlerfering rvith the l"r respondent,s possession or er the subject property cr: being purchased by her from the 2"a respondent herein in the year 2OOC, she had filed a suit ulde OS.No.219 of 200g ,lgainst the 1st appellant rereirL and the same was decreed on l4.ll.2oo7, r shslsfy thg lst appellant lLe:rei r was restrained from interfering, by grarl ting perpetual 3 injunction either by herself, her henchmen, supporters and agent, and that the said order in the aforesaid suit had attained ftna-lity. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that since, the

9. respondents are already injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession by virtue of the aforesaid judgment and decree in OS.No.219 of 2008, the appellalts herein are not entitled for being granted with contra- injunctron, more particularly when the 5th respondent herein is proceeding with the construction by obtaining necessary and vaiid permission from the concerned authorities.

10. We have taken note of the respective submissions made

11. Though the 2"d respondent herein was unsuccessful in getting an injunction against the 1"t appellant herein, and the said order having attained hnatity, it is to be notcd that the 2"d respondent herein had sold the subject property subsequently in favour of the 1"t respondent herein under a registered sale deed, dt. 1O.01.2OOO. The 1"t respondent on purchase of the property had initiated proceedings thereafter against the 1"' appellant herein uide OS.No.219 of 2008, and the said surt has been decreed in favour of the l"t respondent herein uide judgment and decree, dt.14.11.2017, whereby the l appellant herein was injuncted from interfering with the possession of the I I 1"t respondent herein.

12. Further, the tria,1 Court had recorded a categorical finding as to the appellants not being in possession, which is one of the prerequisite for grant of injunction. Also, it is not shown to this Court of the appellants herein having initiated any action against the said judgment and decree passed in O-S.No.219 of 2OO8 as of date. f 4

13. In :he rrltsence of the appelialts herein showrng to thrs Court of the said ordr:r in i,rS.No.219 of 2OO8 being stayed or set asidc by the appellate Court, tlttsi Court ts of the considered view that it is n:t open for the appellanl s to lile ar-ry suit seeking injunction against the Stt, respondent, who has only sucr:ceded to the subject property under a regrstered gift deed executed [)r. t]r{r 1st respondent, being his mother. L4. Thls;. rh;s Court is of the considered view that the order of the Court below ir refru;ing to grant injunction in the underiyirrg interlocutory applicatic,rr ui.de lA.No.473 of 2024 hled by the appellants r-,rrler order XXXDi Rules 1 {[ 2 o' cPC in the suit uide oS.No.go of 2024, clocs not suffer from any error ol rrregularity, for being interfered with by this Court in this appeal. '{-'

15. Ac,;, rdir Lf 11J., the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails ancl is dismissed. No order as tc :osi :i.

16. Co rseqr r.ntlv, miscellancous petitions pending. if a ey, shall stald closed in the lilllrt of this hnal order. ,TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRI]SHNA KUMAR DEPUT'I/ REGISTRAR A SECIlON OFFICER \ \ To,

1. The Senicr Ci,ril Judge-Cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magir;trate Medchal Malkajgir ttistr ir;t at Kukatpally.

2. One CC t r Srj P,. Ananda Chary Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC t,: {iri {l Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Oocies; Kam/gh B}\__.4 ,/ ,'5 l. ,*3 I _::;-*, HIGH COI.'RT DATED:31 l0lt',2025 / I a I I : I i I i i I I I i I {- ';f ORDER CMA.No.6:31 of 2024 t + o IHE rS Li Ir.,:\ z r) r+ 02 Aiil m5 * oCSpA IC -:- a';a-" DISMISSING OF THE CMA ,,1 t-.