C.M.A to set aside interim orders restraining alienation and construction was dismissed. The court held that once construction was completed, alienation could not be stayed, despite the appellant being a signatory in the sale deed.
C.M.A. dismissed; miscellaneous petition disposed of; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
C.M.A.No.472 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
The appellant filed O.S.No.386 of 2010 against the respondents for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, dated 08.10.2005 executed by respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the 1st respondent. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property is held in joint by herself and respondents 2 to 4 and it was sold without her knowledge. She has also filed I.A.No.2334 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to restrain the 1st respondent from alienating any part of the suit schedule property and I.A.No.2335 of 2010, for temporary injunction to restrain the 1st respondent from making any construction. Through a common order, dated 25.10.2010, the trial Court dismissed both the I.As. It was however directed in I.A.No.2334 of 2010 that the 1st respondent shall incorporate a clause in respect of the sale deeds for three flats that the subject matter thereof is s u b judice. The appellant feels aggrieved by the denial of injunction.
Heard Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
The appellant herself endorsed that respondents 2 to 4 are not necessary.
The trial Court took note of the plea that the appellant herein figured as one of the signatories in the sale deed, which is sought to be set aside. That, however, is a matter, which needs to be examined at the trial of the suit. It is a matter of record that by the time the I.As. came to be heard, as many as 17 flats were constructed over the suit schedule property. The trial Court has protected the interests of the appellant, by directing that in respect of sale deeds of three flats, a clause shall be incorporated to the effect that the sale is subject to the result of the suit pending in relation thereto. We do not find any error in the approach of the trial Court. Once the construction of the flats was completed, the alienation thereof cannot be stayed.
The grievance of the appellant is that the particulars of the flats referred to by the trial Court were not furnished. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent undertakes to furnish such particulars to the appellant. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
S.V.BHATT, J
Date: 06.06.2013 JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
C.M.A(sr).No.53541 of 2012
Date: 06.06.2013
JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the injunction applications against the sale of property.
Whether the completed construction of flats justified the refusal to stay alienation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant
1st Respondent
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
S.V.BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
