Partly allowed

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, v. K. Sudershan Reddy

Telangana HC8 Apr 2013CMA/1228/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal, the Court held that calling an injunction application along with the suit defeats its purpose. It directed a temporary injunction restraining alienation of suit properties and ordered the trial Court to dispose of the pending partition suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Parties restrained from alienating suit properties without trial Court permission; suit to be disposed of within six months; injunction valid for nine months.

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, Vs K. Sudershan Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

¶4

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1228 of 2012

¶5

JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.225 of 2011 pending in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which is being tried along with O.S.No.485 of 1994. Both the suits were filed for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. There is overlapping of properties as well as parties in both the suits. Obviously for that reason, they are being tried together.

¶7

The appellants filed I.A.No.76 of 2011 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to restrain the respondents therein from alienating the suit schedule properties. The particulars of the family, the manner in which the properties have accrued or are being enjoyed have been furnished in detail. It was also mentioned that the 1^st respondent in the I.A., who is the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.485 of 1994, filed an application for injunction and orders of status quo have been passed therein. The application was opposed by some of the respondents herein. In view of the directions issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.485 of 1994, the trial Court passed a docket order, dated 27-04-2012, requesting the

¶8

counsel to proceed with the suit and directed the I.A. to be called along with the suit. The appellants feel aggrieved by the same.

¶9

Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri N.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5, 7 and 10 to 13 and Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 9.

¶10

The dispute between the members of the family as regards partition of various items of property is pending for the past one and half decades, hardly with any progress. Various applications filed from time to time have been contributed for the delay. The appellants, no doubt, filed an application along with the suit filed by them in the year 2006. However, the same could not be taken up for one reason or the other. The trial Court was concerned mostly with the pendency of the suit for such a long time and felt that any detailed enquiry into the application would result in further delay of the disposal of the suit. Therefore, it has directed that the application be called along with the suit.

¶11

Whatever may be the intention of the trial Court in passing the docket order, calling of the I.A. filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. along with the suit would defeat the very purpose of filing it. An order ought to have been

¶12

passed either way. The dispute is mainly between the two daughters and three sons of late K.Ram Reddy. The other parties virtually claimed through such siblings or the descendants, or, transferees. The record discloses that the order of status quo, may be in respect of some items of property, was already passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.485 of 1994. The effect of the order of injunction sought for by the appellants would be just to expand the scope of earlier order. Whatever may be the legality or otherwise of the transfers, which have already taken place, we are of the view that it is not at all in the interest of the parties if any further transfers take place over short period, till the disposal of the suit.

¶13

Hence, we partly allow the appeal directing that;

¶14

a) the parties to O.S.No.225 of 2011 shall not alienate any of the items of the suit schedule property, which are held by them as owners under whatever circumstances, except with the specific permission of the trial Court. In case, any of them are under the necessity to sell or otherwise transfer any item of the property, it shall be open to them to file an application before the trial Court, and

¶15

b) the trial Court shall take up the suit forthwith for trial on day to day basis and dispose the same within a period of six (6) months from today. Order of injunction passed hereunder shall be in force for a period of nine (9) months.

¶16

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶18

____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dt:08-04-2013 nvl

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, v. K. Sudershan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anjamma , Anajali Devi, v. K. Sudershan Reddy

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

Damegunta Chandrasekhara Reddy Vs Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional Officer

Kommalapati Buddamma Vs The Land AcquisitionOfficer and

T.Prasada Reddy Vs T.Sumithramma

B. Vikram Kumar Vs Smt. B. Hemalatha , Rukmini

Boga Limbadri Vs Smt. Roopa D/o. Kotha Kamraiah

Spl Dy Collectorandlao. La. Port Dev. Kaki Vs Manga Apparao