This appeal against the dismissal of an interim application for status quo in a suit for declaration of title was dismissed. The High Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the lower court's order given the serious dispute regarding property identity.
The application for status quo was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed.
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 Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
C.M.A.No.302 OF 2014
Dated: 19.03.2014
Between: Tammineni Naramma .. Appellant And B.N.R.Constructions
.. Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
C.M.A.No.302 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)
This appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. assailing the order dated 20.01.2014 in I.A.No.919 of 2013 in O.S.No.110 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, Anantapur. The unsuccessful plaintiff/petitioner is the appellant before us. By the order under appeal, her application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. with a prayer to direct status quo in respect of the plaint schedule property was dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The material available on record shows that the main suit is filed seeking declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and recovery of possession. The appellant/plaintiff is claiming title under a will dated 15.06.1944 stated to have been executed by her father whereas the defendant claims title under a registered sale deed bearing registration No.11546/2011. Apparently, there is a serious dispute even with regard to the identity of the suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, the Court below declined to grant the order of status quo as sought by the plaintiff.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any constructions are made by the defendant over the suit
schedule property pending the suit, the same shall be subject to the result of the suit. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.
______________ G.ROHINI, J
_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 19.03.2014 Ivd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for status quo in a title suit attracts interference.
Whether the lower court was justified in declining status quo amidst a dispute over property identity and title.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Tammineni Naramma
B.N.R.Constructions
G.ROHINI
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
