Partly allowed

Vakamulla Ramanamurthy v. Chitri Padmavathi

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRP/2127/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition in part, modifying an injunction order that restrained the defendant from further construction on the suit schedule property. The defendant had demolished an old dilapidated house and constructed a new one before the injunction was granted, and had undertaken to include the new construction in the partition. The court recorded this undertaking and modified the injunction so that any construction on the schedule property would become part of the partition if the suit is decreed.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed in part; impugned injunction order modified to provide that any construction on the suit schedule property shall become part of the partition if the partition suit is decreed, based on the petitioner's undertaking; no order as to costs.

Vakamulla Ramanamurthy Vs Chitri Padmavathi — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

RC,J CRP No.2127 of 2026

¶2

¶3

APHC010400622026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3332]

¶6

TUESDAY, T HE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2127/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

VAKAMULLA RAM A NAMURTHY, S/O.LATE ASIRINAI D U, OCC ADVOCATE,AGED 5 6 YEARS, MARRIPADU VILLAGE,SA R UBUJJILI MANDAL,SRIKAKUL A M DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

CHITRI PADMAVAT H I, W/o Rajarao,Aged 46 years, R /o.D.No.125,Chinnashalantri Village,Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,prayin g that in the circumstances stated in t h e grounds filed herein,the High Co u rt may be pleased toAggrieved by th e order dt. 17.06.2026 made in C.M.A. N o.03/2026 dismissing the appeal file d by the petitioner and confirming the order and decretal order dt.02.12.20 2 5 made in I.A.No.401/2025 in O.S.No. 7 1/2023 on the file of the court of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Amadalavala s a IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta n ces stated in the affidavit filed in supp o rt of the petition, the High Court may b e pleased to suspend the order dt.02.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 0 1/2025 in O.S.No.71/2023 on the file of the court of the Civil Judge (Juni o r Division), Amadalavalasa as confirm e d by the order dt. 17.06.2026 in CMA N o.03/2026 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family court - cum - III Additi o nal District Judge, Srikakulam, pendin g disposal of the Revision Petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V SUDHAKAR REDD Y

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶19

RC,J CRP No.2127 of 2026

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.06.2026 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Srikulam.

¶23

The petitioner is the appellant/respondent and respondent is respondent/petitioner in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026.

¶24

The respondent herein filed suit vide O.S.No.71 of 2023 for partition.

¶25

In the said suit she filed I.A.No.401 of 2025, under Order 39, Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from further construction of pucca house in the schedule property. The said petition was allowed directing the petitioner herein not to demolish the petition schedule house and also stop further construction of pucca house on the suit schedule property. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner herein preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3 of 2026 and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed in I.A.No.401 of 2025. Assailing the said orders, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

¶26

Heard Ms. Vallabhaneni Santhi Sree, learned counsel, representing

¶27

Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for respondent.

¶28

Ms. Vallabhaneni Santhi Sree, learned counsel, while reiterating the

¶29

contents of the counter filed before trial Court, contentions advanced in first

¶30

RC,J CRP No.2127 of 2026

¶31

¶32

appellate Court and ground of Civil Revision Petition would contend that it has categorically been stated in the counter that the old house which was in dilapidated condition was demolished in the month of May, 2025 and the learned trial Judge had also extracted the relevant portion in the order, however, erroneously held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if injunction is granted. He would further contend that the dilapidated house had already been demolished, now house was constructed therein and house warming ceremony was also held on 27.11.2025 even before passing injunction orders by the learned trial Judge. She would further contend that in the counter filed before the trial Court, the petitioner had undertook to partition the newly constructed house along with the suit schedule property, in the event the respondent wins the suit. He would further contend that the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss in case the injunction order is not set aside and accordingly prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

On the other hand, Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for

¶34

respondent while reiterating the contents of the petition filed before the trial Court and the contentions advanced before the first appellate court would contend that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court upon perusing the material and contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties had rightly considered the matter and there are no grounds warranting

¶35

RC,J CRP No.2127 of 2026

¶36

¶37

interference with the concurrent findings. That the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the old house was dilapidated and new house was constructed and house warming ceremony had also been performed much before passing of the injunction orders by the learned trial Judge. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended in the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner herein, in the counter filed by him in the trial Court, undertook to partition the newly constructed house along with the other suit schedule property, in case the respondent herein/plaintiff succeeds in the suit.

¶40

In view of the above categorical admission of the petitioner herein/ defendant in the suit, without going into other merits, this Civil Revision petition can be allowed in part.

¶41

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, recording the undertaking given by petitioner herein /defendant in the suit that partition of the properties would be with the construction made in the schedule property and that he would not claim any equities and modifying the impugned order that any construction made in the suit schedule property

¶42

RC,J CRP No.2127 of 2026

¶43

¶44

would become part of the partition in case the partition suit is decreed. There

¶45

shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

__________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 15^th September, 2026 RR

Vakamulla Ramanamurthy v. Chitri Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakamulla Ramanamurthy v. Chitri Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases