Dismissed

Gogineni Subba Rao, v. Gogineni Anjaneyulu

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014CMA/863/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the trial court's dismissal of an interlocutory application for temporary injunction. The court held that an undertaking by the respondent to demolish the building upon the appellant's success in the suit sufficiently protected the appellant's interest.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions in the appeal stand closed.

Gogineni Subba Rao, Vs Gogineni Anjaneyulu — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.863 of 2014

¶3

J U D G M E N T: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order and decree, dated 05.09.2014, passed by the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, in I.A.No.1704 of 2014 in O.S.No.215 of 2014.

¶5

2. Originally, the appellant herein filed O.S.No.215 of 2014 against the respondents herein and others seeking preliminary decree by partitioning the suit schedule properties into 36 shares and to allot 7 such shares to him and defendants 2 to 5 therein each, and one such share to 1^st defendant therein.

¶6

3. Pending disposal of the suit, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.1704 of 2014 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Sec.151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short ‘the Code’) seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein/defendants 2 & 3, their men and followers from making any constructions in the petition schedule property, till the disposal of the main suit.

¶7

4. The trial Court after considering the material available on record partly allowed the petition and dismissed the petition in respect of Item No.1 of the petition schedule properties by recording an undertaking given by the second respondent/defendant No.3. Challenging the same, the

¶8

appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

¶9

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff contended that the father of the appellant/plaintiff purchased the property by selling the ancestral property, and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is having a right, title and interest to the extent of his share, and therefore prayed to allow the appeal.

¶10

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was purchased by the father of the appellant/ plaintiff with his own funds, and it is his self-acquired property and that is why, he bequeathed the property to respondents/defendant Nos.2 & 3 and respondent No.2/ defendant No.3 also gave an undertaking that in case the appellant/plaintiff succeeds in the suit, they are ready to give the share of the appellant/plaintiff without claiming any equities and therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶11

7. In view of the undertaking given by respondent No.2/defendant No.3 that in case of the appellant/plaintiff succeeds in the suit, they would demolish the building in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, and thereafter, a partition can be effected, that undertaking protects the interest of the appellant/plaintiff sufficiently. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the material available on record rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application, while recording the undertaking given by respondent No.2/ defendant No.3 therein. Therefore, we are of the view that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

Date: 25.09.2014 sr

Gogineni Subba Rao, v. Gogineni Anjaneyulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gogineni Subba Rao, v. Gogineni Anjaneyulu

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

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Vs Pudi Srinivasa Rao

The Chairman, Vs K.Rajya Laxmi

The Superintendent of Post Offices Srikakulam Division, Vs Vysyaraju Vanajakshmma, W/o.Laxmana Raju

K.v.v.Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Director, Vs L. Sree Ramulu

Dasari Santosh, Vs Punjab National Bank