Partly allowed

B. Narsing Rao v. Smt. P. Sucharitha

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013CMA/328/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a temporary injunction granted in a partition suit. The High Court held that the injunction over three properties was not warranted but upheld it for the property in Survey No. 225, restricting the appellants from alienating it without court permission. Partial allowance of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Temporary injunction set aside for three properties but upheld for Survey No. 225 subject to restriction.

B. Narsing Rao Vs Smt. P. Sucharitha — Succession and Inheritance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

C.M.A. No.328 of 2013

¶3

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The 1^st respondent (for short ‘the respondent’) filed O.S.No.87 of 2011 in the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession of fairly large extent of properties against the appellants and respondents 2 to 10. He has also filed I.A.No.515 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the appellants and other respondents from alienating, transferring and creating encumbrance in favour of third parties in respect of the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit. She has narrated the manner in which the properties were dealt with at different points of time. The appellants filed a counter opposing the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 17.10.2012. Hence, this appeal.

¶5

Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri D.V.Seetarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The appellants on the one hand and the respondent on the other were adopted by late Sri B. Ramchander Rao. His wife, Smt.Bhoodevi was the daughter of Smt.B.Radhamma. She is said to have executed a Will on 02.02.1976 making different bequests on her daughter, Bhoodevi, son-in-law, Ramchander Rao, and the brother of her son-in-law, by name S.P. Bhasker Rao. The respondent is the daughter of Bhasker Rao.

¶7

The respondent pleaded that she is entitled to half share in the entire properties; being the adopted daughter of Ramchander Rao on par with the appellants. Alternatively, she pleaded that her natural father Bhasker Rao was also bequeathed substantial extents of property and she has succeeded to the same. The suit schedule property included various items covering about Acs.170.00 of land. The principal contest was only in relation to four properties, comprising of certain items in the suit schedule.

¶8

A perusal of the record prima facie discloses that one property, comprising of items 1 to 8 of ‘B’ schedule was acquired by Bhoodevi W/o. Ramchander Rao in the year 1963. As regards items 9 to 14 thereof, permission was accorded to Bhoodevi herself, for construction of a building. The 3^rd property, i.e. item No.9 of ‘A’ schedule, the land in Survey No.225, is recorded in the name of Ramchander Rao. A house is said to have been constructed over part of it. The 4^th property is a plot in Jubilee Hills (last item in ‘A’ schedule). The appellants state that the plot was purchased by them in the year 1993 long after the bequest made by Radhamma.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view

¶10

that temporary injunction granted by the trial Court as regards three properties, except the one in Survey No.225 is not warranted. So far as the land and building in Survey No.225 is concerned, a restriction can be placed upon the appellants to the effect that he shall not part with any portion thereof except with the permission of the Court.

¶11

Hence, we allow the appeal in part, setting aside the order of temporary injunction in respect of three properties i.e. (1) items 1 to 8 of ‘B’ schedule (2) items 9 to 14 of ‘B” schedule and (3) the last item of ‘A’ schedule. As regards the property in Survey No.225, i.e. item 9 of ‘A’ schedule, it is directed that the appellants shall not part with any portion thereof, except with the specific permission of the Court. The temporary injunction in respect of other items shall remain.

¶12

It is brought to the notice of this Court that all the defendants in the suit are served with and they have entered appearance. If that be so, the trial Court shall commence the trial soon after the Court reopens.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in the appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J ______________________ S.V. BHATT,J

¶15

Dt:30.04.2013 kdl

B. Narsing Rao v. Smt. P. Sucharitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Narsing Rao v. Smt. P. Sucharitha

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

Malempati , Kambala Lakshmi Prasanna Vs Malempati Surendranath Bharat

S. Deepika Vs M. Suryaprakash

N.Lalitha Vs D.Gandaiah

Boppana Rani Vs Boppana Satyanarayana (died per L.Rs.)

K.R. Venugopal Vs M/s. Taha Construction

Jasthi Bhaskara Lakshmi Vs Kakarla Ramakrishna Jagadguru