JUDGMENT : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) Since, the issues involved in these CMAs are one and the same and they are being disposed of this common judgment. 2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.394 and 395 are filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.06.2024 passed in I.A. No.283 of 2022 and I.A. No.101 of 2022 in O.S. No.63 of 2022 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar (for short ‘the trial Court’). 3. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory applications and plaintiff in the suit filed by her for Partition and Separate Possession against the respondents herein. 4. The appellant filed the underlying interlocutory applications i.e., I.A. No.283 of 2022 seeking ad-interim injunction against respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 from alienating the subject properties to third parties, and I.A No.101 of 2022 to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from changing or altering the nature of the subject properties, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’). 5. It is the case of the appellant in brief that, she had filed a suit for Partition and Separate Possession under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of CPC seeking decree of partition by dividing the subject properties and also to declare 1/3 rd share each to her and respondent Nos.1 and 3 and further to declare the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2007, Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016, Registered Sale Deed dated 06.04.2021, Registered Sale Deed dated 25.06.2021 and Ratification Deed dated 01.09.2021 as null and void. 6. The appellant contends that, she is the elder daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 is the sister of the appellant, respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent Nos.3, and respondent No. 5 is the agreement holder vide Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016. 7. 6. The appellant contends that, she is the elder daughter of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 is the sister of the appellant, respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent Nos.3, and respondent No. 5 is the agreement holder vide Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016. 7. Appellant further contends that, the respondent No.1 is the Karta of the joint family, holding patta and possession of land in Sy.No. 10 to an extent of Ac 1-36 gts; Sy.No.11 to an extent of Ac 0.36gts; Sy.No.15 to an extent of Ac 0.35 gts; Sy.No.45/AA to an extent of Ac 1.05 gts; Sy.No.325/3 to an extent of Ac 0.28 gts; Sy.No. 329 to an extent of Ac 3.29 gts; Sy.No. 356 to an extent of Ac 0.23 gts; Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac 0.07 gts; Sy.No. 358 to an extent of Ac 0.09 gts; Sy.No. 364 to an extent ofAc1.33 gts; Sy.No. 367 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts; Sy.No. 368 to an extent of Ac. 0.06 gts; Sy.No. 369 to an extent of Ac. 0.21 gts; Sy.No. 370 to an extent of Ac. 0.10 gts; Sy.No. 374 to an extent of Ac. 0.39 gts at Shankarpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also holding patta for land in Sy.No.382 to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts at Yelwarthy Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District in all totaling to an extent of Ac 23.29 gts. 8. It is contended that, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.17 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, the respondent No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2021 transferring portions of the land in Sy.No.10/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-25 gts, Sy.No.11/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-12 gts, Sy.No.15/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-13 gts, and Sy.No.374/AA admeasuring Ac 0-18 gts totaling to Ac. 1-28 gts in favour of respondent No.3, with a malafide intention to deprive the appellant of her rightful share in the property, thus the sale deed to be declared as null and void. 9. Appellant contends that, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 entered into a Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016 with respondent No.5, and entrusted land in Sy.No. 329/A2 admeasuring Ac 1-10 gts and Sy.No. 329/AA1 admeasuring Ac 0-01 gts, totaling to an extent of Ac. 9. Appellant contends that, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 entered into a Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016 with respondent No.5, and entrusted land in Sy.No. 329/A2 admeasuring Ac 1-10 gts and Sy.No. 329/AA1 admeasuring Ac 0-01 gts, totaling to an extent of Ac. 1-11 gts, which is an ancestral joint family property devolved onto respondent No.1 from the appellant’s grandfather. Thus, the property entrusted to the respondent No.5 vide document dated 12.07.2016 for Development being ancestral property, the appellant is entitled to her 1/3 rd share on par with the respondent No.3. 10. Appellant also contends that, respondent No.5 intended to distribute semi-constructed 99 villas through a Registered Supplemental Deed. However, on 30.08.2021 the appellant sent a legal notice to respondent No.5, but before receiving the same, respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly colluded and entered into a Registered Supplemental Deed dated 01.09.2021, and accordingly, four villas were allotted to respondent Nos.1 and 3, without making appellant a party to the aforesaid transaction by depriving her legitimate share. 11. Appellant further contends that, the half portion of the old House bearing No.2-6 admeasuring 600 Sq Yds at Shankarpally Village, open plot No.16 admeasuring 100 Sq Yds in Sy.No. 189 which was registered vide sale deed dated 01.04.1986 and Kallam open place admeasuring 300 Sq Yds situated at Shankarpally village fell to the share of respondent No.1 which are also ancestral properties and thus, the appellant has a legitimate right of share of partition of 1/3 rd share each of them. 12. Appellant contends that, respondent No.1 has purchased land in Survey. No.604 measuring Ac. 6-03 ½ gts, out of total extent of Ac.12-07 gts, situated at Kandukoor village, in his name and in favour of respondent No.2 under a Registered Sale deed dated 12.11.1987, thus, the above land is also treated as ancestral property to which the appellant is entitled to her 1/3 rd share. 13. It is further contended that, respondent No.2 has executed a Registered Gift Settlement deed dated 17.09.2007 in respect of the land in Sy.No.604/EE to an extent of Ac 3-02 gts. at Kandukur village, in favour of respondent No.3 which is sham and nominal; that, the respondent No.1 also executed a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2021 in favour of respondent No.4 i.e., the son-in-law in respect of land in Sy.No. 604/E, admeasuring Ac 3-01 gts. at Kandukur village, in favour of respondent No.3 which is sham and nominal; that, the respondent No.1 also executed a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2021 in favour of respondent No.4 i.e., the son-in-law in respect of land in Sy.No. 604/E, admeasuring Ac 3-01 gts. at Kandukur village, with a malafide intention to keep the appellant away from partition. 14. Since, the respondents herein made efforts to alienate the subject properties to the third parties resulting in deprivation of the 1/3 rd share of the appellant, The appellant herein filed I.A. No.283 of 2022 in O.S. No.663 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of appellant/petitioner restraining the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 from alienating or creating third party interest over the subject properties till further orders and the trial Court by an interim order dated 17.11.2021 had initially granted order in favour of the appellant. 15. The appellant contends that, the trial Court after notice to respondent and hearing the respective contentions of both parties in I.A. No. 283 of 2022 passed an order dated 05.06.2024 dismissing the underlying interlocutory application with costs and vacated the interim injunction order dated 17.11.2021 granted earlier. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the trial Court the appellant herein had filed the present appeal before this Court. 16. Per contra the respondents contend that, the subject properties in Survey Nos.10 admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts, Sy.No.11 admeasuring Ac 0-12 gts, and Sy.No.15 admeasuring Ac 0-13 gts, totaling to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts at Shankarpally village originally belonged to one Sheri Narsimha Reddy, which were transferred to respondent No.1 vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 19.07.2008. Subsequently, respondent No.1 sold these lands along with Sy.No.374/AA totaling to an extent of Ac.1-28 gts to respondent No.3 through a Registered Sale Deed dated 25.06.2021. On purchase, the respondent No.3 mutated her name in the revenue records and obtained an e-passbook and title deed, which remained unchallenged and legally binding. 17. The respondents also contend that, the original patta was held by one A. Sudarshanam in Sy.No.329 admeasuring Ac 2-19 gts at Shankarpally village, who sold it to Shri Indrasena Reddy and respondent No.1 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 13-07- 1970. 17. The respondents also contend that, the original patta was held by one A. Sudarshanam in Sy.No.329 admeasuring Ac 2-19 gts at Shankarpally village, who sold it to Shri Indrasena Reddy and respondent No.1 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 13-07- 1970. Further, the land in Sy.No.604 to an extent of Ac 6-03 ½ gts out of Ac 12-07 gts at Kandukur village is originally owned by Miryala Janakiramulu, who sold the same to respondent No.1 and 2 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.1987. After purchasing the aforesaid properties, the lands were divided and respondent No.1 became the absolute owner in Sy.No.604/E to an extent of Ac 3-01 gts. and respondent No.2 held land in Sy.No.604/EE to an extent of Ac 3-02 gts. 18. The respondents further contend that, these transactions establish clear ownership patterns made through the registered deeds entered into by the respondents and the subsequent mutations in revenue records create legally recognized title in favour of the respondents over the mentioned subject properties. 19. It is further contended that, the respondent No. 1 on 06.04.2021 sold land in Sy.No.604/E admeasuring Ac.3-01 gts. at Kandukur village in favour of respondent No.4 through Registered Sale Deed. On 17.09.2007, the respondent No.2 transferred land in Sy.No.604/EE admeasuring Ac.3-02 gts. in favour of respondent No.3 vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2007. 20. The respondents also contends that, the daughters of Late Veera Reddy has filed suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S. No.17 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad in which the appellant herein is arrayed as ‘defendant No.7’ and the subject matter pertaining to Schedule "B" "D" to "F" schedule Properties are part and parcel of subject matter of O.S. No.17 of 2021 and the appellant instead of claiming her share in the above suit has filed the underlying Suit. 21. It is further contended that, the respondent No.1 in order to avoid future disputes with regard to ancestral joint family properties had settled the claim of the appellant and on the request of respondent No.1, his brother i.e. Shri Jagan Mohan Reddy transferred land in Sy.No.364/A admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts in favour of appellant vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 19.07.2008 towards her full and final settlement in the ancestral joint family properties. 22. Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents, and perused the record. 23. 22. Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents, and perused the record. 23. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 24. It is pertinent to note from the averments that, in the suit vide O.S. No. 17 of 2021 filed by the legal heirs of Late Veera Reddy for partition and separate possession on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, that the appellant herein was arrayed as defendant No.7. 25. It is to be further noted that the suit schedule properties ‘B’ and ‘D to F’ in respect of the appellant in seeking partition and 1/3 rd share are subject matter of suit vide O.S. No.17 of 2021 as filed by daughters of Veera Reddy. The appellant herein instead of claiming in the above suit which is prior in point of time had filed the subject suit vide O.S. No. 663 of 2022, claiming the same to be comprehensive suit. Further, the appellant did not file the written statement filed by her in O.S. No.17 of 2021, for this Court to note the stand taken by her therein. 26. Further, the appellant herein while claiming the subject properties as ancestral properties has incorporated the self- acquired properties of respondents herein viz., suit schedule properties of ‘A’ ‘C’ and ‘G’, which makes her claim as false and incorrect. 27. It is also relevant to note the ‘G’ schedule property was originally sold by one Miryala Janakiramulu in favour of Shri. Ramakrishna Reddy and Smt. Swaroopa i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, vide registered sale deed dated 12.11.1987, which also was mutated on to their names. Thus, it is observed herein that the above fact establishes that ‘G’ schedule property is a self-acquired property. Hence, the appellant cannot claim it under the ancestral property. 28. It is also to be noted that, the appellant failed to include the Ex. R-15 i.e. gift deed executed by Jagan Mohan Reddy in favour of the appellant in her suit claim, and thus suppressed the said fact while filing the subject suit. The appellant herein neither mentioned for the reasons best known about she receiving a part of this alleged ancestral property in gift from her paternal uncle, which is also subject matter of suit claim in O.S. No. 17 of 2021. 29. The appellant herein neither mentioned for the reasons best known about she receiving a part of this alleged ancestral property in gift from her paternal uncle, which is also subject matter of suit claim in O.S. No. 17 of 2021. 29. The trial Court by considering all the above aspects by its order dated 05.06.2024 issued a final decree in I.A. No.283 of 2022 in O.S. No.663 of 2022, held as under: i. Para 51: Ex.R-3 is Gift Settlement Deed executed in favour of respondent No.1, Ex.R-4 shows the sale by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, Ex.R-5 shows that Gift Settlement Deed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. Ex.R-7 & Ex.P-14 are the same documents. Ex.R-8 & R- 9 shows 13-B proceedings showing the name of respondent No.1. Ex.R-16 shows sale in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of Ac.6-3 1½ of property in Sy.No.604. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is defendant No.7 in O.S.No.17/2021 and some of the properties as contended by the respondents herein are covered under the suit properties in OS no.17/2021 and still the suit is pending i.e., Ex P-28. Ex R-15 is the gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. ii. Para 52: So it is very well brought on record that the daughters of Late Veera Reddy filed suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.17 2021(old) re-numbered as O.S No. 452 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, in which the petitioner/plaintiff herein is Defendant. No. 7 and Respondents/Defendant Nos. 1,3 and 5 are also parties to the above said partition suit. The subject matter pertaining to Schedule "D" to "F" and other schedule Properties are part and parcel of subject matter of OS.No.17 of 2021. Even It is brought on record that brother of respondent No.1 by name Jagan Mohan Reddy transferred all that land bearing Sy.No.364/A admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts situated at Shankerpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of petitioner/plaintiff through registered Gift Settlement Deed i.e., R-15, it is pleaded that it was for her full and final settlement in the ancestral joint family properties and the petitioner/plaintiff in the presence of family elders agreed that she shall not put forth any share against respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 in the remaining properties and the petitioner/plaintiff. This court feels that even for a moment the said contention is believed to be true, the same can be proved before the court only after full length of trial, but not at this stage. iii. Para 53: On considering the total facts and circumstances, this court feels that whether the property is ancestral property or self-acquired property can be decided only after full length of trial, this petition is filed restraining the respondents No.1, 3 & 4 from alienating the petition schedule property till disposal of suit, but it is suppressed by the petitioner that she is the defendant no.7 in the suit OS no.17 of 2021 filed by the daughters of the Veera Reddy and also that some of the properties herein are covered under the said suit, the present suit is subsequently to the above said suit, this petition is filed to grant ad-interim injunction against the respondents, but this court feels that when other suit is pending before the court of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella in respect of some of the properties here in and other properties, at this juncture this petition for granting interim injunction against the respondents is not maintainable. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner has suppressed material facts before the court, on considering the total facts and circumstances this court feels that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 30. Though the appellant contends that the Registered Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016 executed in favour of respondent No.5, which subsequently was executed in favour of respondent No.1 and 2, which appellant claim as part of her share in the subject properties which are standing in the name of the respondent No.1, it is settled law that no injunction can be granted against the real owner. Further, the appellant also failed to produce any document to prove that ‘B’ schedule property as ancestral property. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan , [ (2013) 9 SCC 221 ] dealing with discretionary power to grant injunction had held: “20. Further, the appellant also failed to produce any document to prove that ‘B’ schedule property as ancestral property. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan , [ (2013) 9 SCC 221 ] dealing with discretionary power to grant injunction had held: “20. In a situation where the learned trial court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The Appellate Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order.” 32. The Apex Court in a recent decision in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others , [(2024) SCC Online SC 3538] while reiterating the view expressed in Mohd. Mehtab Khan (supra) had further observed: “42. ….……High Courts must not lightly set aside the decision arrived at by the trial court in exercise of its discretion unless the order of the trial court fails to satisfy the parameters as delineated by us in the preceding paragraphs. The failure to engage with these crucial aspects renders the High Court's order deficient, detracting from the objective of rendering substantive and reasoned justice.” 33. Further, as the appellant herein suppressed that she is the defendant No.7 in O.S. No. 17 of 2021 i.e. suit filed prior to the underlying suit, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly observed regarding the subject property as ancestral property or self-acquired property to be only decided after trial. 34. Further, as the appellant herein suppressed that she is the defendant No.7 in O.S. No. 17 of 2021 i.e. suit filed prior to the underlying suit, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly observed regarding the subject property as ancestral property or self-acquired property to be only decided after trial. 34. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the subject properties which are claimed as ancestral properties in the subject suit and liable to be partitioned being part and parcel of the earlier suit which is already pending vide O.S. No. 17 of 2021. The outcome in the said suit would have a direct bearing on the claim being made by the appellant herein in the subject suit filed by her more particularly being arrayed as defendant therein. 35. Therefore, Since the other suit is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Chevella in respect of some of the properties in the underlying suit, and the appellant right to claim 1/3 rd share in the subject suit schedule properties is dependent on the result of the said suit, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court in the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No.283 of 2022 in O.S. No.663 of 2022 cannot be said to be either erroneous, illegal or suffering from perversity to be interfered in this appeal. 36. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals fail and are dismissed. No Costs.