High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against dismissal of temporary injunction application regarding property alienation between mother and daughter. Directed trial court to expedite suit disposal within six months.
Court directed trial court to expedite suit disposal within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
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.
[3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 85 OF 2021
Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the Order in l.A.No.SB0 ot 2018 in O.S.No.186 of 2018 daled 1810112021 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda.
Between:
Dubbala Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Late Krishna Reddy, (D/o.Ch.Ram Reddy), aged 57 years, Occ.Housewife, Ri/o.H.No.1-36, Solipeta Village, BommalaramaramMandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
...AppellanUPetitioner/Plaintiff
AND
... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.S. MURTHY
counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAM:BASIVA RAO NAIDU CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEA,L No.85 OF 2021
ORDER:
Being aggrieved by the order dated lB.Ol.2O2l passed by the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir in I.A.No.530 of 2O19 in O.S.No. 186 of 2018 by which an application filed by the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction to restrain 1.he respondents from alienating the suit schedule properq/ or from creating any charge of mortgage over the said property was dismissed, the appellant, who is the plaintiff in the above referred suit, preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2
SSRN, J CMA.No.8S of 2O21
correct, without any justified reason, though the execution of the said two documents was challenged on the ground of fraud. The appellant firrd fault with the conclusions arrived at by the Court below, because the Court came to the said conclusion only on the basis of Ex.R 1/photographs on the wrong premise that the appellant herein actively participated in the social activities. She has also claimed that trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the appellant herein cannot seek relief of injunction to restrain further alienation of the suit property, in view of the execution of Exs.Pl and P2 gift deeds by ignoring the material fact that the appellant has contended that those documents were brourght into existence by fraud and keeping the appellant in dark. The appellant claimed that the Court below failed to exercise sound judicial discretion and passed impugned order by refusing the relief of injunction which will cause injury to the appellant while comparing it with that of the loss likely to cause to the lsr respondent, thereby she sought for setting aside the order of the Court below and prayed for an injunction restraining
3
SSRJV, J CMA.No.8S of 2021
the respondents from alienation of the schedule mentioned property.
4
SSRJV, J CMA.No.85 of 2O21
said propert_v. Thereby, while filing the main suit, for cancellation of the registered gift deed and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents/ defendants form alienating the schedulr: mentioned property, filed the said interlocutory application for temporarlz injunction, pending disposal of the main suit.
respondents/ defendanl-s. They filed counter stating that the appellant / plaintiff is none other than the mother of the li respondent. She has executed the documents after going through the contents of the documents. She can understand English language. She is actively participating in Government/ Social activities. She filed thc application only by giving false infcrrmation and sought for clismissal of the application.
5
SSRAI, J CMA.No.85 ol 2021
not make out prima facie case and tralance of convenience
is not in her favour, dismissed the application.
7, POINT
The suit is in between the mother and her own daughter. The interlocutory appliciltion was filed on the ground that 1.' respondent and her husband obtained her signatures on some documents by rnisrepresenting before her as if the l"t respondent and her husband wanted the signatures of the appellant as the lparantor for the loan said to have been obtained by l.t respondent, but she was taken to Sub Registrar Office and shr: was made to sign the registered gift deeds. It is a fact thzrt the appellant herein signed the affidavit filed in support of the petition ln English language, thereby she cannot claim that she does not know the contents of the docurrLents. The documents
6
SSRN, J CMA.No.8S of 2021
were executed in Sub Registrar Office, but not in any bank. As rightly observed by the Court below, the photographs marked as Ex.Rl showing the active participation of the appellant in social activities with the Government ofhcials. Therefore, she cannot simply claim that she does not know the distinction between the bank and Sub Registrar Office. The appellant cannot deny the fact that before obtaining the signatures, in general, the Sub Registrar used to enquire the executants of a particular document whether she or he know the contents of the documents and if there is any consideration to be paid, whether the same was paid. It is not so easy for the l"t respondent or her husband to obtain the signatures of the appellant hereon on a gift deeds on the ground that her signatures are required as guarantor. Whether there was such situation, which forced the appellant herein to sign those documents by believing the representation made by the l"t respondent and her husband, can be tested only after the parties produce their oral and documentar5z evidence. The claim of the appellant that she was made to believe the version of
7
ssRiv, J CMA-No.aS of 2021
\ \
l"t respondent who is none other than her own daughter and signed the registered gift deeds is a question that can be decided only after the parties produced their respective evidence.
B. However, in the light of the above stated circumstances viz., the appellant sigred her affidavit in English and she is actively participating Government/ Social functions with officials, unless the evidence of both parties is brought on record, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
8
SSRN, J CMA.No-85 of 2O21
between the parties il is just and necessar-v to give a direction to the trial court for quick disposal of the suit. Therefore, the appeal is; Iiable to be dismissed.
I 1. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
/
SD/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SEC ,dffi,.,",*
To,
'1. The V Additional Dislrict Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda. (with record, if any)
?il'cl '
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0710912022
ORDER
i?
I
t
2 i] I-JEI] ?[Il
'v
\i : 1-'i 5
CMA.No.85 of 2021
DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITH DIRECTION
t)
"v'Y
A'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the trial court refusing temporary injunction is liable to be set aside?
Whether the appellant is entitled to temporary injunction as prayed for?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dubbala Vijayalakshmi
Pillendla saritha
Bachu Swapna
Sri Justice Sambasivarao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
