JUDGMENT : P. Sree Sudha, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 passed by the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed an application vide I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, against the appellants/defendants, for granting of ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants/defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition ‘B’ schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the evidence on record, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents therein/appellants preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants mainly contended that respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession, as such the question of granting injunction in their favour does not arise. The trial Court has wrongly concluded the entries made in the revenue records as family division (Kutumba Vibhajana) under Ex.P75. He also contended that respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded themselves that suit schedule properties are not partitioned in the plaint and Ex.R5, but the trial Court wrongly concluded the same. Moreover, the entries made in Exs.P53 to P65 and Ex.P75 are misunderstood. The trial Court passed the Order without going through Exs.R1 to R8, as such it is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the trial Court passed the injunction Order against the co-owner. The trial Court erroneously gave the finding that respondents/plaintiffs are in separate possession of the suit schedule ‘B’ property, pending disposal of the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the impugned Order passed by the trial Court. 4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record. 5. Parties herein are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for the sake of convenience. 6. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the impugned Order passed by the trial Court. 4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record. 5. Parties herein are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for the sake of convenience. 6. Initially, plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.364 of 2024, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by demarcating their entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts including an extent of Acs.8 – 25 gts (mentioned as suit – B Schedule property) out of Acs.14 – 14 gts and also requested the Court to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit B-Schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have filed an application vide I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B-Schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Plaintiffs No.1 to 19 are represented by their GPA holder Bhumireddy Venkata Malikarjuna Reddy, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 are represented by their GPA holder M/s.Ashoka League Projects and plaintiffs No.20 to 21 and 32 to 35 are represented in their individual capacity. Defendants No.2 and 3 are son and wife of defendant No.1. The family pedigree is illustrated as follows: 7. The brief facts of the case are that originally the lands in Sy.Nos.15, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 together admeasuring Acs.14-14 gts belongs to one late Kista Reddy and late Chenna Reddy, who are brothers and later their legal heirs names were entered into the revenue records as per the ROR Act and ROR rules and individual pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour prior to the year 1990. 8. As per the family pedigree, L.Kista Reddy branch is entitled to an extent of Acs.7 – 07 gts. As L.Kista Reddy is having two sons namely L.Chandra Reddy and L.Ram Reddy, they are entitled to Acs.3 – 23 gts each out of Acs.7 – 07 gts. The land of Chandra Reddy is divided among his three sons namely Kista Reddy, Srinivas Reddy and Pratap Reddy. Later, Ram Reddy transferred his land to his son Bal Ram Reddy. As L.Kista Reddy is having two sons namely L.Chandra Reddy and L.Ram Reddy, they are entitled to Acs.3 – 23 gts each out of Acs.7 – 07 gts. The land of Chandra Reddy is divided among his three sons namely Kista Reddy, Srinivas Reddy and Pratap Reddy. Later, Ram Reddy transferred his land to his son Bal Ram Reddy. The said Bal Ram Reddy sold the said Acs.3 – 23 gts through two different registered sale deeds. He sold the land to an extent of Acs.2 – 39 gts to L.Amruthamma W/o.Yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma W/o.Gopal Reddy and L.Sulochana W/o.Chandra Reddy through registered sale deed vide document No.2018 of 1997, dated 24.07.1997. The said Yadi Reddy, Gopal Reddy and Chandra Reddy are the children of second branch of Chenna Reddy family. Bal Ram Reddy sold the remaining land of Ac.0 – 24 gts out of Acs.3 – 23 gts to L.Sanjeev Reddy S/o.Yadi Reddy and L.Arjun Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy together jointly through registered sale deed vide document No.39 of 2007, dated 05.10.2006. 9. Similarly, Chenna Reddy branch is entitled to an extent of Acs.7 – 07 gts. The said Chenna Reddy is having two sons namely Sharava Reddy and Sanga Reddy. As the said Sharava Reddy died issueless in the year 1978, the entire property is succeeded by his brother Sanga Reddy, who died later in the year 1980 and the said Sanga Reddy is having three sons namely Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy. Accordingly, the said property of Acs.7 – 07 gts is divided among three brothers i.e., Acs.2 – 15 gts each. Accordingly, individual pattadhar passbooks and title deeds along with 1-B (ROR) records are issued in favour of all the land owners. 10. All the legal heirs of both the branches obtained the physical possession over the said schedule property in the presence of elders and are in enjoyment of their respective extents without any third party interference. The landowners approached the developer through local mediators and the developer agreed to develop the land for construction of villas. 10. All the legal heirs of both the branches obtained the physical possession over the said schedule property in the presence of elders and are in enjoyment of their respective extents without any third party interference. The landowners approached the developer through local mediators and the developer agreed to develop the land for construction of villas. The developer agreed to develop Acs.4 – 18 gts on out rate basis and Acs.6 – 08 gts for development out of Acs.14 – 14 gts and the remaining land of Acs.3 – 28 gts belongs to defendants, which is already in their possession, in which they have constructed some sheds long back and doing horse riding business with a compound wall. As per the understanding between the land owners and developer, all the land owners together jointly sold their lands to an extent of Acs.4 – 18 gts through several registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and for the land admeasuring Acs.6 – 08 gts, the land owners i.e., plaintiffs No.22 to 34 entered into a registered development agreements cum general power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.35. 11. Immediately after registration, the land owners delivered their physical possession to the purchasers to an extent of Acs.10 – 26 gts out of Acs.14 – 14 gts. Accordingly, plaintiffs together removed all bushes, temporary sheds and cleared the land admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts and proceeded with the villa project for approvals and sanctions. Later, defendants offered to sell their land at an exorbitant price to the purchaser, but the purchaser refused to buy the land, as such defendants raised a dispute stating that there is no real partition took place between all the brothers and plaintiffs cannot proceed with the development process. Defendants are enjoying their land measuring an extent of Acs.3 – 28 gts without any interference or interruption by the plaintiffs. 12. Thereafter, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 have filed an application for sub-division of their lands along with F-line application through Mee-seva. Basing on the said applications a notice was issued by the AD-Survey and M.R.O on 12.12.2023 to all the members, who are holding the land in the above survey numbers stating that demarcation will be conducted on 18.12.2023 at 10:30 AM. Basing on the said applications a notice was issued by the AD-Survey and M.R.O on 12.12.2023 to all the members, who are holding the land in the above survey numbers stating that demarcation will be conducted on 18.12.2023 at 10:30 AM. On receiving the notice for demarcation, defendant No.3 filed a suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.886 of 2023 and obtained status-quo Order in I.A.No.987 of 2023 on 12.12.2023. The said suit was filed on 11.12.2023 and Caveat was filed on 06.11.2023. The defendant No.3 made a representation to the AD-Survey and MRO on 15.12.2023, requesting to stop the demarcation as there was Status-Quo Order and accordingly it was stopped. Later, second notice was issued by the AD-Survey to all the parties on 15.04.2024, stating that survey will be conducted on 27.04.2024. When AD-Survey along with his staff went to the site for conducting survey, defendants approached the site and abused the AD-Survey, as such police complaint was filed by the AD-Survey against the defendants and the same was registered as Crime No.373 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, under Section 353 and 506 of IPC and the same is pending. Again third notice was issued on 23.05.2024 for conducting the survey on 30.05.2024 and accordingly survey was conducted. Immediately after the survey, the defendants along with 10 to 12 anti-social elements trespassed into their property and threatened them, as such plaintiff No.23 filed a criminal case against the defendants and the same is pending. 13. Plaintiffs stated that out of total land admeasuring Acs.14 – 14 gts, Acs.2 – 39 gts is left aside as per the directions of the trial Court in O.S.No.886 of 2023, in which defendants are having Ac.1-00 gts and the remaining extent of the land which remains to the defendants is Acs.2 – 28 gts out of Acs.3 – 38 gts, which is already in their possession and constructed sheds and doing business, but still defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and 35 have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4 – 18 gts and entered into registered development agreement for the land admeasuring Acs.6 – 08 gts and the land holding by defendants i.e., L.Yadi Reddy and his family is Acs.3 – 28 gts out of Acs.14 – 14 gts. 14. Plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and 35 have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4 – 18 gts and entered into registered development agreement for the land admeasuring Acs.6 – 08 gts and the land holding by defendants i.e., L.Yadi Reddy and his family is Acs.3 – 28 gts out of Acs.14 – 14 gts. 14. Plaintiffs further stated that one M.Lalitha, who is the daughter of Sanga Reddy in collusion with defendant No.1 filed a suit vide O.S.No.644 of 2023, for partition, though her marriage was performed prior to the year 1985. The Defendant No.2 had also filed another suit for partition vide O.S.No.78 of 2024 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0 – 12 gts out of Ac.0 – 24 gts. Defendants instead of filing a single suit for partition in respect of the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs. 14 – 14 gts filed several suits suppressing several material facts. Defendants are interfering with the remaining land admeasuring Acs.8 – 25 gts, which exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs, with a mala fide intention. If at all, the said lands are not partitioned previously, how can the defendants construct a room and sheds for horses and even a compound wall to an extent of Acs. 2 – 28 gts and even electricity connection was given to the said land. Only after the registration of the land admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts by the developer, defendants started creating trouble to get huge price for their land. 15. Defendants sought for injunction for the land admeasuring Acs.8 – 25 gts shown as Schedule – B property. There is no title dispute in regard to the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs approached the Rajendranagar police to provide police protection over the suit B-Schedule property, but they simply denied stating that as the matter is civil in nature, directed to approach the Court, as such they preferred the suit. 16. In the written statement filed by the defendants they stated that originally land admeasuring Acs.14 – 24 gts belongs to Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy, who are the real brothers, subsequently their names were entered in the revenue records as per ROR Act. The land admeasuring Acs.14 – 19 gts was orally partitioned between the branches of Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy. The land admeasuring Acs.14 – 19 gts was orally partitioned between the branches of Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy. In the said oral partition, Late Kista Reddy branch got Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts, and Late Chenna Reddy branch got Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts. Accordingly, their branches have been separately enjoying their respective lands. 17. Defendants further stated that their branch have been jointly enjoying Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts., without any partition by metes and bounds. In the said Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts, the defendant No.1 is having undivided 1/3rd share, Lankala Gopal Reddy is having undivided 1/3rd share and Lankala Chandra Reddy is also having undivided 1/3 rd share, but their sister by name Lalitha, filed a suit vide O.S.No.644 of 2023 for partition and separate possession claiming 1/5 th share. In the said suit, defendants have filed their detailed written statement claiming 1/3rd share. Defendants have shown the family tree of Late Lankala Chenna Reddy, as follows: 18. Defendants have admitted the sale deeds executed by L.Balaram Reddy, regarding his entire extent of land and there is no dispute regarding filing of O.S.No.78 of 2004 by defendant No.2. Defendants also stated that in the both suits i.e., O.S.No.886 of 2023 and O.S.No.78 of 2024, plaintiffs admitted that no partition was effected by metes and bounds, filed the suit for partition and separate possession and obtained ex-parte interim injunction against them, which is erroneous and also stated that it is a settled principle of law that “No injunction can be granted against co-owner”. It is also stated that mere obtaining pattadar passbooks and title deeds does not confer any exclusive rights to the plaintiffs and in the revenue records no boundaries were mentioned. The entries made in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds do not mean that properties were partitioned by metes and bounds. Plaintiffs did not file a single document to prove that their vendors were in possession within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and irrevocable GPA’s and thus no partition was effected among the sharers. 19. Defendants further stated that when the matter is sub- judice before the trial Court, the question of surveying the land through Mee-seva does not arise. 19. Defendants further stated that when the matter is sub- judice before the trial Court, the question of surveying the land through Mee-seva does not arise. Plaintiffs have no locus standi to leave Acs.2 – 28 gts to them as per their wishes and they have no right to file the suit when once the matter is sub-judice before the other Courts for partition of 1/3 rd share of defendant No.1 and thus leaving of Acs.2 – 28 gts does not arise. It is also stated that there is no partition effected in respect of the suit schedule properties among the sharers, as such the question of giving separate tables does not arise and plaintiffs falsely alleged that they have constructed a compound wall to an extent of Acs.2 – 28 gts, as a matter of facts, they have constructed a room and cattle shed in and over Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts of land. Already suits are pending before the concerned Courts for partition by metes and bounds, as such the question of purchasing by plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and 35, through alleged registered sale deeds and development Agreement-cum-GPA does not arise and they are false, bogus and created documents. The legal heirs of Lankala Chenna Reddy have not yet partitioned their land admeasuring Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts and they are enjoying the property without any partition by metes and bounds, but the plaintiffs knowing all these facts, filed a speculative suit for partition without adding necessary parties, as such the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it has to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 20. The learned counsel for the defendants gave material to show the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs under Exs.P1 to P46. His main grievance is that specific boundaries to the said extents were not mentioned and boundaries of Acs.14 – 14 gts were not mentioned. In all the cases, boundaries are shown as neighbours land, owners land and similar boundaries were mentioned in Exs.P37 to 46. 21. His main grievance is that specific boundaries to the said extents were not mentioned and boundaries of Acs.14 – 14 gts were not mentioned. In all the cases, boundaries are shown as neighbours land, owners land and similar boundaries were mentioned in Exs.P37 to 46. 21. As the defendants in the suit raised objection regarding the partition of the property between the sharers, which was happened way back in the year 1989, the trial Court discussed all the documents at length and stated that there was allegation regarding family division/partition (Kutumba Vibhajana) and it goes to show that there was division of properties between two branches and other issues are to be decided in the main suit and during the pendency of the suit, it is for the Court to protect the rights of the parties and accordingly granted injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit B-Schedule property. 22. There is no dispute regarding the total extent i.e., Acs.14 – 14 gts and also regarding the oral partition between the two brothers i.e., L.Kista Reddy and L.Chenna Reddy. Kista Reddy property was divided among his two sons Chandra Reddy and Ram Reddy admeasuring Acs.3 – 23 gts each. The Chandra Reddy property was divided among his three sons, whereas Ram Reddy transferred his share of property to Bal Ram Reddy. He sold his share of property to the extent of Acs.2 – 39 gts to L.Amrutha W/o. Yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma W/o. Gopal Reddy and L.Sulochana W/o. Chandra Reddy and also sold the remaining extent of Ac.0 – 24 gts to L.Sanjeev S/o. Yadi Reddy and L.Arjun Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy, who are the family branch of Chenna Reddy. If at all, there was no partition by metes and bounds among two brothers and their legal heirs, why the family members of Yadi Reddy, Gopal Reddy and Chandra Reddy purchased the property from Bal Ram Reddy to the total extent of Acs.3 – 23 gts was not explained anywhere. The Chenna Reddy has two sons and both of them died, as such Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy stated that each of them are entitled to Acs.2 – 15 gts, but their sister filed the suit claiming 1/5th share in the said property. The Chenna Reddy has two sons and both of them died, as such Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy stated that each of them are entitled to Acs.2 – 15 gts, but their sister filed the suit claiming 1/5th share in the said property. The defendant No.3 i.e., wife of Yadi Reddy has also filed another suit and so also defendant No.2 had also filed another suit for his Ac.0 – 12 gts of land. 23. Plaintiffs contended that defendants filed several suits for different extents, but a comprehensive suit for the total extent of Acs.14 – 14 gts was not filed by anyone. Admittedly, there was division of property between two brothers in the year 1989 and later it was devolved upon their children and the partition was conducted between the branches of both sides, as such they executed registered sale deeds in favour of several other members who are arrayed here as plaintiffs. There was no dispute regarding the title or division of property among two branches. Now, the problem had arisen when the land was entrusted to the developer for constructing villas, defendants opposed the same. Instead of developer filing the suit against the defendants, all the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition against defendants for partition of entire extent of the land, whereas defendants admitted oral partition occurred way back in the year 1989, but submitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds. The entire extent of the defendants is only Acs.3 – 28 gts and they have constructed sheds, running horse riding business and also constructed a compound wall, but surprisingly, defendants raised objection stating that they have constructed shed in Acs.7 – 9 ½ gts, but not Acs.3 – 28 gts. When Sharava Reddy died issueless in the year 1978, his share was devolved upon his brother Sanga Reddy. When Sanga Reddy died in the year 1980 itself, the property was divided among his sons equally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no partition at all of the extents to be possessed by each sharer. However, respective share has not been delineated by metes and bounds. Only in view of hike in prices of the properties, several suits were filed from the same family for different extents. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no partition at all of the extents to be possessed by each sharer. However, respective share has not been delineated by metes and bounds. Only in view of hike in prices of the properties, several suits were filed from the same family for different extents. It is for the said reasoning, in the sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs, the boundaries mentioned are that of the total extent of land of Acs.14 – 14 gts and not that of each of the sharer. 24. In the interlocutory application, injunction is sought for regarding suit B-Schedule property. Plaintiffs/petitioners in the said application requested the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession in the B-Schedule property. B-Schedule property was shown as suit B(I) to B(VI) in different extents. The same relief was sought for in the suit itself. It is one of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. Therefore, relief granted in the interlocutory application amounts to granting of the said relief in the suit without adducing any evidence by both sides. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside. However, considering the fact that plaintiffs and defendants are no other than cousins and the objection is raised only by defendant No.1 and his family, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an order of Status-Quo, since parties claim to be in possession of land falling to their extent. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants are restrained from the interfering with the property of others. They should continue their possession in their own property and accordingly Status-Quo is granted. 25. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 and both the parties are directed to maintain Status-Quo. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.