Dismissed

Smt. M. Nirmala, v. Varkatam Satyanarayana Reddy

Telangana HC17 Feb 2014CMA/794/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal challenged the grant of a temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating suit schedule properties in a partition suit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no justifiable reason to interfere with the discretion exercised in view of the prima facie case established by the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; main suit to be disposed of expeditiously.

Smt. M. Nirmala, Vs Varkatam Satyanarayana Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.794 OF 2013

¶4

Date: 17.02.2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

Smt. M.Nirmala and another

¶7

… Appellants

¶8

And

¶9

Varkatam Satyanarayana Reddy and two others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶12

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.794 OF 2013

¶13

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶14

This appeal is preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. against the order dated 13.09.2011 in I.A.No.155/2008 in O.S. No.10/2008 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶15

The defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants before us. The respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares with metes and bounds and for allotment of 1/3^rd share to him. Pending the suit

¶16

the plaintiff filed I.A. No.155/2008 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule lands. The Court below by the order under appeal granted temporary injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶18

As could be seen from the material available on record, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 i.e., the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the sons of one late Venkatrama Reddy. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein he is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties. Alleging that in spite of repeated requests made, the defendants 2 and 3 did not come forward to effect the partition, the main suit is filed. Admittedly, the defendants 3 and 4 i.e., the appellants before us are claiming title to the property in question under an Agreement cum General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below rightly held that a prima facie case is made in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, thought it fit to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover unless the appellants who are only claiming title through the defendants 1 and 2 are restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties it would result in creating third-party interest. Therefore, the interference by this Court at this stage is not

¶20

warranted on any ground whatsoever.

¶21

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

However, the main suit may be disposed of expeditiously following due process of law.

¶23

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶24

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶25

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶26

Date: 17.02.2014 Mva/Klp

Smt. M. Nirmala, v. Varkatam Satyanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Nirmala, v. Varkatam Satyanarayana 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

Shaik Vazir Vs M.Krishna

Pittala Lachavva Vs Duddeti Venkataiah

M/s Keshree Metalurgies Pvt.Ltd Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of

Molugu Narender, Vs Maduri and Molugu Firm

Vinay Kumar,S/o.R.P.Singh, Vs The Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat,Hyderabad

K Srinivas Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.