JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Appeal is filed challenging the order dt.16.07.2019 passed in Interlocutory Application No.66 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2018 on the file of V Additional District Judge, at Bhongir. 2. The appellant herein is plaintiff in the above suit. 3. The appellant filed the said suit against respondents for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for allotment of 1/3rd share to himself, and to declare that all transactions pertaining to the suit schedule properties are null and void, and not binding on him. 4. Admittedly, there are four Schedules viz., 'A' to 'D', mentioned in the plaint wherein the properties, which are sought to be partitioned, are mentioned. 5. In this Appeal we are concerned only with 'B' Schedule property comprising of (i) Acs.10.11 gts. in Survey No.358, (ii) Acs.3.36 4/5 gts. in Survey No.359 of Mukthapur Revenue Village, Boodanpochampally Mandal, Yadradi, Bhongir District and (iii) a farm-house located therein consisting of two floors enclosed with a compound wall and also having teak and coconut trees. 6. The appellant herein and 2nd respondent are the sons of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent's father is one Balreddy, who is no more. The case of the appellant 7. The case of appellant in the Court below was that the appellant was a mentally and physically disabled person by birth and is also of unsound mind, and that he is being represented by his maternal grand-mother in the suit. 8. Before the Court below, the appellant contended that his father and his grand-father Balreddy partitioned the properties, and the plaint schedule properties and other properties fell to the share of 1st respondent in the said partition. He claimed that the said property is joint family property, and being a coparcener, the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share therein along with his brother, the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent. 9. He claimed that the said property is joint family property, and being a coparcener, the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share therein along with his brother, the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent. 9. He alleged that 1st respondent is an alcoholic and was acting against the interests of his sons, i.e., the plaintiff and 2nd respondent, and in connivance with respondent nos.3 to 12, the 1st respondent was bent upon creating false documents for the past four years; that the 1st respondent is seeking to declare all these documents as null and void, and not binding on him; and that the appellant's grand-mother requested the 1st respondent to partition the share of appellant in April, 2018, but he did not oblige. I.A.No.66 of 2018 10. Along with suit, the appellant filed I.A.No.66 of 2018 for an ad interim injunction restraining respondent nos.1 to 12 from alienating the suit schedule properties till the disposal of main suit. He reiterated the contents of plaint in the said application. The stand of the respondents 11. The respondent nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte in the said I.A. 12. The 3rd respondent filed a counter contending that the suit is a collusive suit instigated by respondent nos.1 and 2 to deprive other respondents of their legitimate right in their suit schedule properties. 13. It was denied that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, and it is contended that recitals in two registered sale deeds bearing Nos.5203 / 2012 dt.19.10.2018 (Ex.R.2) and 53/2013 dt.24.12.2012 indicate that the 'B' schedule property is not joint family property as the 1st respondent is the vendee, and the properties were purchased from third parties. He also stated that the appellant did not choose for partition of the other properties which are admittedly joint family properties. He sought for dismissal of the suit on the above grounds and also on the ground of non-joinder of subsequent bona fide purchasers who are necessary parties. 14. The 4th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that he is the absolute owner of the agricultural land of extent Acs.5.07 gts. He sought for dismissal of the suit on the above grounds and also on the ground of non-joinder of subsequent bona fide purchasers who are necessary parties. 14. The 4th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that he is the absolute owner of the agricultural land of extent Acs.5.07 gts. in Survey No.358/AA situate at Mukthapur Village; that his name is also mutated in the Revenue Records as per a proceeding of the Tahsildar dt.21.04.2018; that this property was sold by one K. Bhaskar to 1st respondent under a registered sale deed bearing No.5203 / 2012 dt.19.10.2012 (Ex.R-2); that 1st respondent then executed Ex.R.5 - Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney dt.6.11. 2015 with possession in favour of 3rd respondent and subsequently Ex.R.6 - Sale Deed was executed on 20.04.2016 in favour of 3rd respondent. 15. He contended that 3rd respondent sold the property to 4th respondent under registered document No.2023 / 2018 dt.09.03.2018. 16. He further contended that the 7th respondent is the owner of Acs.4.00 gts. in Survey No.359/A of Mukthapur Village, and that the 7th respondent has purchased it under registered Sale Deed dt.07.02.2018 from 3rd respondent. 17. According to him, 'B' Schedule property is not joint family property and appellant is not in possession thereof, and the Court Fee paid by him is not proper. 18. The respondent nos.5 and 7 filed a Memo adopting the counter of 4th respondent. 19. The 8th respondent filed a counter stating that he owns Acs.5.04 gts. in Survey Nos.358/A and 358/AA of Mukthapur Village; that he purchased it from 10th respondent under a registered Sale Deed dt.07.03.2018; and that his name was also mutated in the Revenue Records on 21.04.2018. The order of the Court below 20. Before the Court below, the appellant marked Exs.P.1 to P.17, and respondents marked Exs.R.1 to R.10. 21. By order dt.16.07.2019, the Court below allowed Interlocutory Application No.66 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2018 in part and granted interim injunction in favour of appellant only in respect of 'A', 'C' and 'D' Schedule property till the disposal of main suit, but dismissed it regarding 'B' Schedule property. 22. The Court below referred to the contention of appellant that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties, the documentary evidence filed by him and also the contention of respondents that plaint 'B' Schedule property is not joint family property. 23. 22. The Court below referred to the contention of appellant that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties, the documentary evidence filed by him and also the contention of respondents that plaint 'B' Schedule property is not joint family property. 23. It then referred to Ex.R.1 - Sale Deed dt.18.08.2017 executed by 1st respondent through his General Power of Attorney holder M. Nagaraju in favour of one S. Aruna for an extent of Acs.2.31 1/2 gts. in Survey Nos.134/U, 135/U, 137/AA, 353/A and 59/E2, Ex.R.2 - Sale Deed dt.19.10.2012 executed by one K. Bhaskar in favour of 1st respondent for Acs.5.07 gts. in Survey No.358, and Ex.R.3 - Sale Deed executed by one Smt. M. Chinna Illamma in favour of 1st respondent for Acs.5.04 gts. in Survey Nos.358/A and 358/AA of Mukthapur Village. 24. The Court below also referred to Exs.R.4 to R.7 which are agreements of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney executed by 1st respondent in favour of 3rd respondent for Acs.5.07 gts. in Survey No.358, Acs.4.21 gts. in Survey No.359, Acs.5.07 gts. in Survey No.358 and Acs.4.21 gts. in Survey No.359. 25. It observed that it was the 1st respondent who purchased Acs.5.07 gts. in Survey No.358 and Acs.5.04 gts. in Survey No.359, and also executed General Power of Attorney with possession in favour of 3rd respondent. 26. It held that thereafter he executed Sale Deeds covered by Exs.R.6 and R.7, and so, it has to be held that they are self-acquired properties of 1st respondent. It also observed that no document is filed by appellant to prove that these properties are ancestral and joint family properties of appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2. 27. The Court below further referred to Ex.R.8, proceedings dt.12.01.2017 of Tahsildar, Bhoodan Pochampally, wherein several survey numbers were shown in the name of 1st respondent and his father, but survey numbers 358 and 359 were not found in it. 28. It therefore held that prima facie 'B' Schedule property is not the joint family property, and at this stage it cannot conclude that funds of joint family were used by 1st respondent to purchase 'B' Schedule property or that they were purchased with his self-income, and that that will be decided in the main suit after all the evidence is brought on record. The present Appeal 29. Assailing the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 30. The present Appeal 29. Assailing the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 30. Heard the counsel for appellant. 31. The counsel for appellant contended that the order passed by the Court below is contrary to law and also to the material placed on record and that the Court below ought to have granted temporary injunction in appellant's favour restraining the alienation of 'B' Schedule property also against the respondents. The consideration by the Court 32. The respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the father and brother of appellant have remained ex parte in Interlocutory Application No.66 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2018, and have not put forth their case in the Court below. This suggests that there is also a possibility of the said parties remaining silent hoping to help the appellant. 33. A reading of the plaint indicates that 1st respondent is shown by appellant to be doing not only agriculture but also performing roadwork contracts. 34. Ex.R.2 - Sale Deed was executed on 19.10.2012 by one K. Bhaskar in favour of 1st respondent for an extent of Acs.5.7 gts. in Survey No.358 and Exs.R.3 is the copy of the Sale Deed executed by one Smt. M. Chinna Illamma in favour of 1st respondent for Acs.5.4 gts. in Survey Nos.358/A and 358/AA of Mukthapur Village. It is not the case of appellant that there is any recital in these Sale Deeds that purchase money came from the ancestral nucleus of 1st respondent. 35. There is therefore every possibility of the 1st respondent earning income from such contract works and purchasing the plaint B schedule properties with the said income. 36. Ex.R.8 proceedings of Tahsildar, Bhoodan Pochampally, dt.12.01.2017 indicates that 1st respondent submitted application before Tahsildar on 06.12.2016 stating that his father had died, and he is having lands at Mukthapur Village of extent Acs.12.2 1/2 gts., but in Ex.R.8 there is no reference to Survey Nos.358 and 359 at all. 37. Therefore, prima facie, 'B' Schedule properties do not appear to be joint family properties. 38. Also the title to the properties appear to have been transferred by 1st respondent to respondent nos.3, 4 and 7 prior to the filing of the suit itself by the 1st respondent and the appellant cannot be said to be in joint possession of the said properties. 38. Also the title to the properties appear to have been transferred by 1st respondent to respondent nos.3, 4 and 7 prior to the filing of the suit itself by the 1st respondent and the appellant cannot be said to be in joint possession of the said properties. Consequently, it is also doubtful whether Court Fee of Rs.200/- paid by appellant is proper since the Court Fee appears to have been paid under Section 34(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act alleging that the appellant is in joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property. 39. For all these reasons, we see no reason to disagree with the finding of the Court below about the 'B' Schedule properties, prima facie, not being joint family properties. 40. Therefore, we see no merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 41. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.