JUDGMENT : The present appeal is preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff in rejecting I.A.No.74 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed under Order XXXIV Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining 5 th respondent/ 5 th defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, by order, dated 03.10.2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Plaintiff, husband of 1 st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4 are brothers and 5 th defendant being subsequent purchaser from 3 rd defendant are contesting O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, instituted for partition and separate possession. It is claimed that initially suit schedule property belonged to one Sri Gundu Rao, grandfather of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. He was succeeded by three sons, and later one of the son settled and his share was taken out of joint family thereby only two sons viz., M. K.Gopala Rao and M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao continued to hold properties jointly. After death of both brothers, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 became successors thereby claiming half of the share, Suit came to be instituted for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. (b) The said case of plaintiff came to be opposed by filing written statement interalia stating that already there was a partition amongst three sons of Gundu Rao on 04.02.1963 and the same were divided into three schedules – first schedule fell to the share of plaintiff’s father, second schedule fell to the share of father of defendants 2 to 4 and third schedule fell to the share of third brother. Thereafter, respective parties are in possession and enjoyment, therefore, denied that they still continued to be joint family property susceptible for partition. The 5 th defendant being a bona fide purchaser, pleaded that the property was acquired from the share which fell to the family of M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao. Initially, the trial Court granted ad interim injunction on 20.06.2014, later, eventually the same was challenged by 5 th respondent purchaser in C.M.A.No.907 of 2015 before this Court. The 5 th defendant being a bona fide purchaser, pleaded that the property was acquired from the share which fell to the family of M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao. Initially, the trial Court granted ad interim injunction on 20.06.2014, later, eventually the same was challenged by 5 th respondent purchaser in C.M.A.No.907 of 2015 before this Court. By order, dated 22.06.2016, the said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the injunction granted and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to parties and receiving additional material. Accordingly, additional documents came to be filed by both appellant/ petitioner as well as respondents. After appreciating the respective pleadings and the documents exhibited, trial Court ultimately rejected the prayer in the I.A. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff. - 4. Heard Sri P.Madhukar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court erred in appreciating that there was no partition prior to and suit schedule property all through remained to be joint property between brothers viz., M.K. Ganga Rao and M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao, ignoring the said aspect, the trial Court has rejected the I.A. 5 th respondent being a purchaser, there is every likelihood of altering the nature of property and also alienating the same and in case appellant succeeds in the Suit, if any third party interests are created, it will be difficult to undo and restore the rights so accrued. - 6. None appeared for the respondents to refute the aforesaid submissions. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Suit was filed in the year 2014 for partition and separate possession. Initially, there was an interim injunction granted on 20.06.2014, however, the same was set aside by this Court on 22.06.2016 in C.M.A.No.907 of 2015 while remanding the matter. Eventually, the I.A. was reheard after allowing the parties to adduce additional documents and by impugned order, dated 03.10.2017, it has been dismissed; there is no injunction granted in the present appeal. It is stated that now the Suit is at an advanced stage of trial. Eventually, the I.A. was reheard after allowing the parties to adduce additional documents and by impugned order, dated 03.10.2017, it has been dismissed; there is no injunction granted in the present appeal. It is stated that now the Suit is at an advanced stage of trial. The trial Court after analyzing the pleadings and documents exhibited by both parties, has prima facie came to conclusion that under Ex.R.18 there was a partition between plaintiff’s father and other two brothers and that the subject property which has now been alienated in favour of 5 th respondent was from the share which fell to second brother, who is father of defendants 2 to 4, therefore, there was no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of appellant/plaintiff to grant ad interim injunction. Since the Suit is of the year 2014 and even otherwise, there is no injunction in operation after disposal of C.M.A.No.907 of 2015 on 22.6.2016, having regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court that on the face of Ex.R.18 partition deed, prima facie, subject properties are not joint properties any more. This Court is not convinced by the contentions raised by the appellant. In a Suit for partition, the plaintiffs have to show that the properties are ancestral properties and there was no prior partition to claim the same susceptible for partition and in the present case, though plaintiff has pleaded that properties are joint properties and they are in joint and constructive possession, the defendants in order to rebut the same, has placed various documents, in particular, Ex.R.18, which is partition deed, dated 04.02.1963, which indicate that there was indeed partition, however, subject to the same being proved in trial. - 9. It is fairly well-settled in catena of judgments, in one of celebrated judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd . (1990) (Supp) SCC 727 , it has been held that the appellate Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by trial Court and substitute its own discretion, unless the trial Court is shown to have exercised such discretion arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or ignored settled principles of law. Further, appellate Court should not re-assess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below. Further, appellate Court should not re-assess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below. If the discretion has been exercised by trial Court reasonably and in a judicious manner, even if it is possible for appellate Court to take a different view, it should not lean in favour of disturbing or unsettling the view one taken by the trial Court exercising its discretion. On analysis of the findings recorded in the present case, the trial Court rightly has exercised its discretion in coming to the conclusion that prima facie there was a partition and the plaintiff was not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction. - 10. While deciding interlocutory application, it has to be seen only whether prima facie case is being made or not and whether there is balance of convenience and irreparable loss caused if the injunction is not otherwise granted. The trial Court has specifically recorded finding that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience made out and any irreparable loss caused if injunction is not granted, and on the other hand, the 5 th respondent being a bona fide purchaser, if any injunction is granted against her, the same would cause more prejudice and irreparable loss to her, therefore, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. - 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed without costs. 12. As the Suit is of the year 2014 and substantial time has already passed, learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.