Partly allowed

Valluru Sivanath, v. Valluru Ravindranath

Telangana HC5 Jul 2013CMA/462/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a trial court order dismissing an interim injunction, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. It directed respondents to construct a function hall on 0.25 cents but prohibited construction on the remaining land and restricted alienation without court permission.

What did the court decide?

Respondents permitted to construct a function hall on 0.25 cents; restrained from constructing on the remainder or alienating any part without trial court permission.

Valluru Sivanath, Vs Valluru Ravindranath — Partition | 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.462 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellant filed O.S.No.5 of 2013 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada against his brothers, respondents 1 and 2, his nephew, respondent No.3, his niece, respondent No.4 and his mother, respondent No.5 herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property viz., Ac.1.05 cents of land in R.S.No.507 of Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District. He has also filed I.A.No.4 of 2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 2^nd respondent from making any construction over the suit schedule property and from executing any documents in relation thereto. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 14.03.2013. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

It appears that there is a serious dispute between the parties as regards the partition of the properties left by late Purnachandra Rao. The present suit is in respect of Ac.1.05 cents of land. The appellant claims one-fourth share in that, whereas the respondents submit that the share of the appellant is only one-sixth. Their further plea was that the appellant has relinquished his share. These however are

¶6

matters, which need to be dealt with in the suit. The I.A. filed by the appellant is to restrain the 2^nd respondent from making any construction over the land and from alienating it. The trial Court took note of the fact that the 5^th respondent i.e., mother of the appellant has already obtained permission for construction of a function hall in an area of Ac.0.25 cents. The apprehension of the appellant is that the construction would be made in the entire extent. Across the Bar, it is stated that the construction is confined only to Ac.0.25 cents. Even if the claim of the appellant for one-fourth share is accepted, his interests are very much protected, since Ac.0.80 cents of land still remains. His apprehension can be allayed, by directing the respondents not to alienate the remaining part of the land.

¶7

Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed directing that the respondents may proceed with the construction of function hall in an area of Ac.0.25 cents, but they shall not make construction over the remaining part of land nor shall they alienate it, except with the specific permission of the trial Court.

¶8

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

¶9

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶10

S.V.BHATT, J

¶11

Date: 05.07.2013 JSU

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶14

C.M.A.No.462 of 2013

¶15

Date: 05.07.2013

¶16

JSU

Valluru Sivanath, v. Valluru Ravindranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valluru Sivanath, v. Valluru Ravindranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Authorized Officer, Vijaya Bank, Vs Surapaneni Vani Padmavathi

Smt. Guntur Venkata Subba Rama Rajani, Vs M.V.S.S. Srinivas

M.Ramchanderrao and 3 Others Vs S.E. Roadsandbuildings K.Nagarandanother

Mr.Prasangi Chiranjeevi Murthy Vs Smt.Pillarisetty Swarnalatha

Edara Ravi Kumar Vs Nallam Sridevi

Selco International Limited Vs M/s.Medha Servo Drives Pvt. Limited