Allowed

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others v. Akkennaboina Krishna and 19 Others

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021CMA/101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal challenged an interim injunction order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining appellants from alienating suit properties. The High Court found the lower court failed to assign reasons, mark documents, or grant hearing, violating natural justice principles. The appealed order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim injunction order set aside, remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others Vs Akkennaboina… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{M.S.RAMACHANDRARAO} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

CIVIL MISCELL ANEOUS^{APPEALNO i 10'l oF 2021}

¶7

Appeal Under section^{order43 Rule1 of cPC againstthe Judgment/Decree in} t.A.No.1B35 0f 2019 in^{o.s.No.395 0f 2019dated 06.03.2020 0n the file of the} XVI Additional District^{And session Judge, Ranga Reddy Districtat Malkajgiri.}

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1/	PRAVEENKUMARPUTLAGURI-A S/o.P.VasanthaReddy, Agedabout36 Years, Occ:Business, R/o. PlotNo.3,HanumanjiS(,ciety, Chinnathokatta,Bowenpally, Secunderabad.
I	N,SUDHIRREDDY S/o.N.ChennaReddy, Agedabout39Years,Occ:Business, R/o.B-1-164/8,BrundavanColony, Pragathi Nagar, MailaredevpallyVillage, RajendranagarMandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict.
h	PEDDI SANTHOSHREDDY S/c.P.RamReddy, Agedabout36Years, Occ:Business, R/o.FlatNo.201,RoyalResidency, JJNagar, Alwal, l.4edchalMalkajgiriDibtrict.
	N.CHENNAREDDY S/o.N.KrishnaReddy, Agedabout67 Years,Occ:Busiiness, R/o.B-l-164/E,BrundavanColonY, Pragathi Nagar, Mailardevpalll'^Village, RajendranagarMandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict. .,APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTNOs.20to²³ 1

¶10

A N.D

¶11

¶12

,/	AKKENNABOINA KRISHNA
	S/o.LateA.Narasimha,
	Agedabout 44Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.3-133,BahdurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal, MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict.	..RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF	/9
	FN.D
2	SMT.AKKENABOINALAXMI
	W/o.LateA.Narsimha, AgedaboutB0Years, Occ:Househol R/o.1-20,BandurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal, MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict. d i		/r
3	AKKENNABOINAMALLESH S/o.Late A.Narsimha,
	Agedabout47 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.3-133,BandurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal, Medchal tvlalkajgiri District.		A
4	AKKENNABOINAAN]ENEYULIJ S/o.Late A.Narsimha, Agedabout42.Years,Occ:Agriculture, R/o.3-133,BandurpallyVilla(.re, Dundigallulandal, MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict.		/12
5	SIVIT.AKKENABOiNASAVITRI W/o.Late A.Somaiah,
	Agedabout48 years,Occ:Household, R/o.3-133, BandurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal,
	MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict.		13
6	AKKENABOINABHANU S/o.Late A.Somaiah,
	Agedabout27Years,Occ:Business R/o.3-133,BandurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal, MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict. i
7	AKKENABOINA HEMALATHA D/o.Late A.Somaiah, Agedabout25Years,Occ: Student, R/o.3-133,BandurpallyVillage, DundigalMandal,	I	74
	MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict.

/9,

/rc

/12

-3

\lTl /

{

lySlJE.olNA^{sHrvA KU} MAR 5/o.Late A.Somaiah l?^"q.,1"_r,^{23 years, Occ:} Studenr.^. y: i._1?3, Bandurpaly viirug;,"=,,., Dundigal Mandal Medchal t\ alkajgiri District. /g. PARUSHA ILAMMA W,/o.p. Ramulu, E^x ]^{" ,,"} u;finU* f}*i,,,r h SMT.S.SAVITRI Wo. S.suryanarayanan D/o.Late A.Narsimha. Aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife, R/0. 15-108, New Mirjalguda Village, ' Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. At SMT.CHELLY MANJULA W,/o.Ramesh, D/o. Late A.Narsimha, tgeq *o1r^{35 years, Occ: Housewife,} R/ o,L-2- t36/8, yeilareddy GLrda, Kapra Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. .r12.^{StvlT. MUDUKULAVANYA} W/o.Vishnu^yadav, D/o.Late A.Narsimha, Aged about 33^years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 1- 10-22 1/A,^peddathokata Comsary Bazar, Bowenpally Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶24

AKKENABOINA BHARATHAMMA W/o.Late A.Sattaiah, Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Household, R/ o.4-27, Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶25

AKKENABOINA PENTAIAH S/o.Late A.Sattaiah, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Business, R/ o.4-27, Bahadurpally Village, Dundigal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgirl District.

¶26

¶27

		.+'
	(	AKKENABOINA^KOMARAIAH S/o.Late^A.Sattaiah, il"iuoort^{35 Years,occiBusiness'} 'iii.q'zt ,^{BahadurPallYVillage'} Dundiqal^Mandal, l,tlo.nir^{Malkaigiri District'}
	tb.	AKKENABOINA^{SREENU @ SR]NVAS} s/o.LateA.Satta^iah, nt"Jioort^{33 Years,occ:Business'} nio. r-OS,^{BahadurPallYVillage'} Dundigal^Mandal, Medcnal^{Malkajgiri District'}
	t7. (	AKKENABOINA^SWAPNA w)o.n.St"unu^@Srinvas, nqeOaOout^{29Years,Occ:Housewife'} R7o.1-6S,^{BahadurPallY Village,} Dundigal^Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri^District' t;
	IB t	SMT.P,MALAMMA W/o.P.Satyanarayana^Yadav, D/o.A.Sattaiah, Agedabout^{45 Years, Occ:Housewi} R/o.33-29/4,Rajeevgandhi^Nagar, Quthbullapur^Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri^District' I' t, 1l f, ll I'
	19	.SMT.S,IAKSHMI W/o.S.Venkatesh^Yadav, D/o.A.Sattaiah, Agedabout41Years,^Occ:Housewi R/o.14-92,Old Mirjalguda, MalkajgiriMandal, MedchalMalkajgiri^District, ef
tQ" i l, i I	20 r I	..RESPONDENTS/ .^RESPONDENTS/ ANTNOs.1^TO19 DEFE (Respondents/RespondentsI ir' DefendantNos.2to^20are Proforma^partiesand^notnecessary^r: partiestothisCivilMiscellaneous^Appeal) .SMT.14.SUJATHA W/o.M.ArunKumar, D/o. A.sattaiah, Agedabout34^{Years,Occ:Housewifqr} R/o.17-486,I.^N.Nagar, MalkajgiriMandal, MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict. i,

¶28

Counsel for the^{Appellants:SRl.RESUMAHENDERREDDY}

¶29

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1 : SRl. R' BALASUBRAMANYAM}

¶30

The Court delivered^{the following: JUDGMENT}

¶31

¶32

¶33

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶34

AND

¶35

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶36

¶37

CIVIL NIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.l0l of 2021

¶38

.ItiDGMITN'l-: 1l)cl IIon't.rlc^{Sri .iLrsticc \1.S.} Runtachanclla llao)

¶39

Fleald learned counsel lbr appellant and leamed counsel for l'' respondent.

¶40

1'his Appeal is filed cLallenging the order dt.06-03-2020 in I.A.No, 1835 of 2019 in O.S.No.395 of 2019 of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.

¶41

The appellants herein are defendant Nos.20 lo 23 in the suit.

¶42

the I't respondent herein filed the said suit against the appellants and others for partition of the plaint schedule properties 'A' to 'D' and for l/9'h share therein, to declare certain sale deeds executed on 22-09-2016 as null and void and not binding on hirn,anci also lor a pennanenl injunction.

¶43

Along rvith the suit, tlre l" respondent had filed I.A.No. 1835 o1' 2019 undel Order 39 Rules I and 2 C.P.C. ior temporary iniunction restraining the appellants and other respondents lrorr alienating^or transfening, encumbering or otherwise creating any charge in^favour of third parties or from changing the^nature of^{the suit schedule} properties 'A' to 'D' during pendency of the main suit. r' /L -t'

¶44

Cou nter'-a t ll dal it rvas tilecl by the appcllants^{hereinopposing} the said app lication.

¶45

Without nrarking any documents on either side and rvithout giving any reasons, the Coun below allowed I.A.No. 1835 of 2019 mentioning para-4 as under:

¶46

"4. Considering the material on record, since the suit is for partition of the suit schedule properties, the rights of which would be decided during the course of regular trial, I feel the petitioner is able to make out prima.focie e'ttse and balance o.f tont'enience in his .favour. l/ the propertie.s are ulienated, the pelitiotTlJt i.s likcl.t, to susluin lo.r.s itt lhc evcnt ty'.rut'taeding in the ntuitt srlt. ,\b prejrulite tould be cuused if interint itliutlction is grantcd,. othcry i.sc it tlould lte leose to multi/hrious lirigurion.^"

¶47

As seen fi'onr the order of the Cou( below. it had extracted in

¶48

para-2 the contentions ol the 1" respondent and in para-3 the contentions ol the appellants, and then stated in para-4 as narrated above, and granted the temporary injunction restraining the appellants and others from alienating the suit schedule properties till disposal of the suit.

¶49

We do not find any reasons assigned by the Court below for

¶50

granting such relief. In panicular, it has not mentioned whether there is prima .facie case in lavour of l " respondent, that balance of convenience is also in his thvour and that irreparable injury rvould be caused to him if interirn lelief is not grante-d.

¶51

¶52

10, We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶53

I l. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed; the order dt.06-03-2020 in I.A.No.1835 of 2019 in O.S.No.395 of 209 of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri is set aside; the said I.A. is remanded back to the Courl below for fi.esh consideration; the Court belo',v shall give oppoftunity of hearing both sides and then pass an oldel in accordance with law in the said l.A. on ol belore l5-06-202 I .

¶54

The Court below shall decide the said I.A. uninfluenced by the observations made by itearlier in I.A.No.l835 of 2019 or in the order passed by this Court in this order. No costs.

¶55

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/. K.SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶57

To,

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

The XVI Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at fr/alkajgri.

¶60

The Registrar.Generar FA9. Re-gistrar (vigirance) High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶61

One CC to Sri. Resu Mahender Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl

¶62

One CC to Sri. R. Bala Subramanyam, Advocate [OpUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

gbr \ 'J}/--\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810412021

S TA r€,
i
q
-.)
,J 11 UAY 2021 c':
*
cEil)

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.101 ol 2021

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

<br>

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others v. Akkennaboina Krishna and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Pullagurla and 3 Others v. Akkennaboina Krishna and 19 Others

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 new india assurance Vs smt Padala lakshmi

Sri. G.V. Gyaneshwar Naidu and 4 others Vs Smt Lalitha Srikrish and 13 others

K. Akhil Reddy Vs Smt. Lalitha Srikrish

M/s.Vanaja Electrical Appliances (P) Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Quality Technologies Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St). Ida

M/s.Nitin Fordging and Steel Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) and another