JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024 dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., for granting ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating, transferring or otherwise creating any charge in favour of third parties over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the main suit filed for partition and separate possession and for declaration of documents i.e. (i) registered sale deed dated 14.08.1985 bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 (ii) registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 19.10.2004 bearing Doc.No.8247/2004 and (iii) registered sale deed dated 27.03.2006 bearing Doc.No.4480/2006 as null, void and not binding on appellants/plaintiffs. 3. Pending consideration of the suit, the appellants filed I.A.No.423 of 2024 contending that the appellant No.1 is one of the sharers in the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.108 situated at Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal (earlier Rajendranagar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District. It is contended that appellant No.2 has entered into an Agreement with the appellant No.1. 4. It is further contended by the appellant No.1 that originally her father i.e. late Kistaiah, out of his hard earned money and by cultivating the lands on lease from different land owners, had purchased the subject land admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.108 from Gadda Laxmaiah under registered sale deed dated 11.02.1981 vide Doc.No.559/1981 in the name of his wife Smt.Pastham Durgamma. After the death of Kistaiah, his wife Durgamma along with their children viz., appellant No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2, Arjun and Pochamma were jointly cultivating the schedule land with peaceful possession and enjoyment. 5. It is further contended that after the death of late Kistaiah, Durgamma along with her three sons viz., respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Arjun jointly alienated the suit schedule property to third parties i.e. respondent No.3 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 dated 14.08.1985 behind the backs of appellant No.1 herein and her sister Pochamma by suppressing the fact that appellant No.1 herein and her sister Pochamma are also legitimate shareholders, being legal heirs of late Kistaiah, and that the respondent No.3 without knowing all these facts, purchased the schedule property. Subsequently, sister and brother of appellant No.1 viz., Pochamma and Arjun died issueless. Mother of appellant No.1 Pastham Durgammma also died on 10.11.2019. 6. It is contended by appellant No.1 that subsequent to purchase of schedule property by respondent No.3 along with his family members i.e. respondent No.4 to 7, had alienated the land admeasuring Ac.1.35 gts in Sy.No.108/A in favour of respondent No.8 vide AGPA bearing Doc.No.8247/2004 dated 19.10.2004. Thereafter, respondent No.3 to 7 represented by their GPA Holder i.e. respondent No.8 executed a sale deed vide Doc.No.4480/2006 dated 27.03.2006 in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.35 gts in Sy.No.108/A out of the suit schedule property. 7. It is further contended that the sons of late Gadda Laxmaiah, in collusion with Pastham Durgamma executed a Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.1973/2006 dt.13.02.2006 in favour of Pastham Durgamma confirming the validity and execution of sale deed dated 11.02.1981 vide Doc.No.559/1981 and the same was executed behind the back of appellant No.1. Subsequently, some third parties, who are in no way concerned with the suit schedule property, also issued a Rectification Deed dated 22.04.2006 vide Doc.No.6154/2006 in favour of Pastham Durgamma, mother of appellant No.1 confirming the validity and execution of sale deed dated 11.02.1981 bearing Doc.No.559/1981, and the said Rectification Deed is only to the extent of non-claiming any title or right in the suit schedule property. 8. It is further contended that in the month of March, 2023, the appellant No.1 received summons in O.S.No.168 of 2023 pending on the file of learned Principal III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, which was instituted by one Kum.Kavitha, daughter of respondent No.2 herein without having any right, title or concern over the suit schedule property. In fact, the respondent No.2 herein, father of said Kavitha had sold the property by virtue of registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 dated 14.08.1985 and as such, said Kavitha has no right, title or concern to file O.S.No.168 of 2023. 9. It is further contended that after receiving the summons in O.S.No.168 of 2023 only, the appellant No.1 came to know about the fraudulent transactions that had taken place between the respondents behind her back, since she is already in possession of the suit schedule property to the extent of her share. 9. It is further contended that after receiving the summons in O.S.No.168 of 2023 only, the appellant No.1 came to know about the fraudulent transactions that had taken place between the respondents behind her back, since she is already in possession of the suit schedule property to the extent of her share. In the month of October, 2023, she approached respondent No.1 and 2 for partition, but they denied for partition of the suit schedule property. Hence, as appellant No.1 is legally entitled for a share in the suit schedule property, she filed the suit as respondent No.1 and 2 have fraudulently alienated the suit schedule property in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9 behind the back of appellant No.1. 10. Thus, appellant No.1 in I.A.No.423 of 2024 contends that she has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience for granting of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendant from alienating, transferring or otherwise creating any charge in favour of third parties over the petition schedule property. 11. On behalf of respondent No.9, One Kasireddy Bhasker Reddy filed counter-affidavit to I.A.No.423 of 2024 stating that he is the authorized signatory of respondent No.9 Firm, which was originally a partnership firm vide Registration No.3134 of 2007 and subsequently reconstituted as Limited Liability Partnership vide LLP Registration No.AAO-6232 dated 25.03.2019. 12. It is contended in the counter-affidavit that suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for partition and to declare the sale deeds as null and void is neither maintainable under law nor on facts. It is contended that P.Durgamma w/o.Kistaiah, mother of appellant No.1 being pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule land in Sy.No.108 total admeasuring Ac.2.00 gts of Kokapet village by virtue of Doc.No.559/1981 dated 11.02.1981, lawfully sold the entire extent of land for value to respondent No.3 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.5765/1985 dated 14.08.1985. Thereafter, respondent No.3 executed a registered AGPA bearing Doc.No.8247/2004 dated 19.10.2004 in favour of respondent No.8 duly authorizing him to alienate the suit schedule property, who in turn executed a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4480/2006 dated 27.03.2006 in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of Ac.1.35 gts out of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.108/A as the remaining extent of Ac.0.05 gts thereof was already sold to Smt.L.Jaya Bharathi through a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.7249/2004 dated 03.09.2004. Subsequently, said L.Jaya Bharathi sold the said extent of Ac.0.05 gts to respondent No.9 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.319/2018 dated 16.12.2018, thus, respondent No.9 became the absolute owner and possessor of entire suit schedule property. Mutation was also effected in the Revenue Records and pattedar passbook and title deed vide Katha No.573 were also issued in favour of respondent No.9. The suit schedule property was also converted into Non-Agricultural Land vide proceedings No.C1/3736/2016 dated 22.04.2017. 13. It is further contended in the counter that the appellant No.1 herein fraudulently filed the subject suit knowing fully well that registered sale deed dated 14.08.1985 has been lawfully executed by her mother and brothers in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of the subject property, and that appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein, though minors at the time of execution of sale deed dated 14.08.1985, they never chose to challenge the sale made thereunder even after attaining majority, thereby the right of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 to dispute the sale deed stood extinguished by efflux of time. 14. It is further contended that the appellants herein have filed the suit as well as the present petition in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2 knowing fully well that their family parted with possession of the schedule property in the year 1985 itself, and it is ex facie evident that the appellants have filed the present petition with the sole objective to illegally extract money from respondent No.9 by creating vexatious litigation, amounting to abuse of process of law. 15. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court, after marking Exs.P-1 to P-5 during hearing, had framed the following points for determination of the underlying Interlocutory Application : “1. Whether the plaintiffs are having prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour? 2. Whether the plaintiffs suffer irreparable loss or injury if the relief is not granted?” 16. Whether the plaintiffs are having prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour? 2. Whether the plaintiffs suffer irreparable loss or injury if the relief is not granted?” 16. Sri Muhammad Vequar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that on 11.02.1981, the father of appellant No.1 has purchased the subject property in the name of mother of appellant No.1 by name Pastham Durgamma by virtue of a registered sale deed, and thereafter in the year 1985, the mother of appellant No.1 along with brothers of appellant No.1, without the knowledge of appellant No.1, executed a fraudulent sale deed in favour of third party i.e. respondent No.3 behind the back of appellant No.1, and in the year in 2004, another alienation deed was executed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 in favour of respondent No.8. 17. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that in the year 2023, the daughter of respondent No.2 instituted a suit O.S.No.168 of 2023 for partition, and it is only after receiving summons in the said suit, the appellant No.1 herein came to know about the fraudulent transactions took place behind her back and as such, the appellants herein filed the present suit O.S.No.170 of 2024 for partition and other reliefs. 18. Learned counsel for appellant No.1 contended that the learned Trial Court, without appreciating the various contentions urged, erroneously dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed seeking for grant of ad interim injunction holding that the claim of appellants is barred by limitation. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the observations of the learned Trial Court held that when appellant No.1 became major in 1990, it has to be assumed that she got knowledge of the same, but the learned Trial Court without any legal backing cannot just assume that appellant No.1 got knowledge of the transactions when she came major and that the learned Trial Court cannot say the same on the basis of assumptions. However, the appellant No.1 got knowledge of the previous transactions after receiving summons in O.S.No.168 of 2023. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants relying on the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daliben Valjibhai and others Vs. However, the appellant No.1 got knowledge of the previous transactions after receiving summons in O.S.No.168 of 2023. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants relying on the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daliben Valjibhai and others Vs. Prajapati Kodarbhai Kachrabhai and another, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1334 = 2024 0 INSC 1049 : With respect to fraud nullifies everything, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Candid Enterprises , [(2001) 5 SCC 307]. Regarding limitation in case of partition, right to sue, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair (died) by LRs Vs. Padmanabha Pillai, [Order dated 15.12.2003 in C.A.No.013133-013133/1996] and Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati (Dead) by LRs Vs. Prem Prakash and others, [ (1995) 4 SCC 496 ] 21. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, does attract to the present case, but the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the respondents not to alienate or encumber the subject property is generally a routine kind of relief and is a preventive order which would protect the interests of the parties from unnecessary litigations. If the respondents alienate the property in favour of the third parties, it would just create multiplicity of litigations causing an irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs. In this regard, he placed on the decision in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others , [2025 (2) ALD (SC) 271] 22. It is further contended that the mother of the appellant No.1 has alienated the property along with the brothers of appellant No.1, when the appellant No.1 and her brothers were minors, in grave violation of Section 8(1) of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 without permission of the Court. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the judgments in O.G.Sankar Vs. S.Veera Sameera Kumar Dev , [1996 LawSuit (AP) 542] and Saurabh Gupta Vs. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on the judgments in O.G.Sankar Vs. S.Veera Sameera Kumar Dev , [1996 LawSuit (AP) 542] and Saurabh Gupta Vs. Smt. Archana Gupta and others , [2024(2) ADJ 241] with respect to applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act equivalent to Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 24. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit instituted is well within the period of limitation i.e. from the date of knowledge of the fraudulent alienations by the respondents and basing on the above facts and legal position, prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the appellants for grant of ad interim injunction. 25. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for grant of ad interim injunction. 26. On the other hand, Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 submits that the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs itself is not maintainable, which is filed after 39 years of sale of suit land, without challenging any of the registered sale deeds thereon, and on the said ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini. 27. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 further contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the instant case, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of The Transfer for Property Act comes into operation. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi and others Vs. Anand Kumar and others , [ (2025) 5 SCC 198 ] 28. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 further contended that the appellants termed the 39 years old sale deed as ‘fraudulent’ in the plaint, however, the appellants neither challenged the said registered document nor pleaded any material particulars of the alleged fraud as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. To this effect, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishnudeo Narain and another Vs. Seogeni Rai and another , [(1951) SCC 447] and Electrical Castings Limited Vs. To this effect, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bishnudeo Narain and another Vs. Seogeni Rai and another , [(1951) SCC 447] and Electrical Castings Limited Vs. UV Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others , [ (2022) 2 SCC 573 ] 29. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel on record and thoroughly perused the record. 30. The learned Trial Court relying upon the various aspects including legal provisions as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of cardinal principle enshrined in Section 17 of the Limitation Act with respect to fraud nullifies everything, held that the appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 cannot say that she got knowledge of fraud only when she received summons in the former suit. It is a fact that the subject property was transferred to third party way back in the year 1985 itself. Therefore, appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 cannot claim that the suit schedule property is still in their joint possession, even after its transfer. 31. The learned Trial Court further held that even assuming that appellant No.1 got knowledge of alleged fraud, immediately after she attained majority, that may be in the year 1990, she would have filed the suit, but she still allowed 34 years to pass through without any claim or challenge, where the limitation prescribed was only for 12 years, and thereby the appellant No.1 cannot get any benefit out of the various legal positions placed before the Court. 32. The learned Trial Court upon considering the various contentions raised before it including the judgment relied upon by appellants in Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the limitation for the suit would be governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that for a suit for partition, the starting point of limitation is when the right to sue accrues, that is when the plaintiff has notice of his entitlement to partition being denied, and if the plaintiff was a minor, it commences after attaining majority. It has further held that when the property has been parted with by family of appellant No.1 way back in the year 1985 itself, cause of action does not flow to file the suit. 33. It has further held that when the property has been parted with by family of appellant No.1 way back in the year 1985 itself, cause of action does not flow to file the suit. 33. The learned Trial Court rightly came to conclusion that injunction not to alienate is generally a routine kind of relief, the Courts tend to grant in the light of Section 52 doctrine of lis pendens under the Transfer of Property Act, whereas in the present case, a reading of the plaint itself appears to be not sustainable and it is glaringly barred by limitation, and thereby agreed the contentions advanced by respondent No.9 that appellants/plaintiffs are trying to create a vexatious litigation thereby committing an act of abuse of process of law, thereby dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants. 34. The appellants have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daliben Valjibhai (supra), wherein the Court considered a case involving a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004. In that case, the plaintiffs came to know of the execution of the impugned sale deed only when they received notice from the revenue authorities in 2017, and upon obtaining a certified copy, they discovered that their signatures had been forged. The Supreme Court held that since the plaintiffs filed the suit immediately after discovering the fraud, the action was within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Here, the suit is filed for partition and declaration of certain sale deeds as null and void, though the property in question was alienated way back in 1985. The appellants, having remained silent for nearly four decades, cannot now claim ignorance of such transactions. Hence, the ruling in Daliben Valjibhai (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 35. Per contra, the respondent No.9 has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), where it was held that when sale deeds executed in 1978 were registered and the plaintiffs or their predecessors had notice of such transactions, failure to challenge them for decades rendered the subsequent suit barred by limitation. The Court observed that parties cannot revive stale claims or reignite rights after long inaction. The Court observed that parties cannot revive stale claims or reignite rights after long inaction. It was further held that suits filed after decades, without a valid explanation for delay, amount to meaningless litigation. Therefore, the ratio of Uma Devi squarely applies to the present case, where the appellants have approached the Court after about forty years of the original alienation. 36. It is a well-settled principle of law that allegations of fraud, undue influence, or coercion must be pleaded with full and specific particulars. Mere general or vague allegations are insufficient to establish fraud before a Court of law. In the present case, though the appellants have alleged fraudulent conduct by their family members, no concrete material or specific particulars have been furnished to substantiate such allegations. It appears that the plea of fraud has been taken as an afterthought, merely to overcome the bar of limitation and to give a semblance of cause of action. 37. A perusal of the documents filed by the appellants shows that except for the sale deed dated 11.02.1981, no document evidencing their ownership, possession, or recognition in the revenue records has been produced. Further, no specific date or material has been shown to indicate when the alleged fraud came to their knowledge. 38. The law extends equitable relief only to those who approach the Court with bona fide and legitimate claims. Resorting to litigation through clever drafting and belated allegations of fraud, without credible evidence, constitutes an abuse of process and clogs the judicial system with frivolous cases, thereby hindering the dispensation of justice. 39. The learned Trial Court, upon a thorough consideration of the material on record, rightly held that the appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case or to show that the balance of convenience lies in their favour. The Trial Court correctly concluded that the present suit and interlocutory application were filed with an oblique motive, amounting to vexatious litigation. 40. The finding of the Trial Court that any transfer made during the pendency of the suit would be subject to the outcome of the main proceedings sufficiently safeguards the interests of the appellants. The parties remain at liberty to establish their respective claims and defences during the course of trial. 41. 40. The finding of the Trial Court that any transfer made during the pendency of the suit would be subject to the outcome of the main proceedings sufficiently safeguards the interests of the appellants. The parties remain at liberty to establish their respective claims and defences during the course of trial. 41. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.170 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024, rejecting the appellants’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants no interference. 42. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.44 of 2023 is dismissed. 43. Interim orders granted, if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.