Maganti Srinivasa Rao vs Maganti Venkateswara Rao,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4727 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                         MAIN CASE No.A.S.No.211 of 2021


                                    PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No     DATE                                                                  Office
                                             ORDER

Note 19.11.2021 RRR, J I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021

The parties in this application are being referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.9 of 2015 in the Court of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and one share being allotted to the plaintiff with separate possession. The subject matter of the suit was consists of two items of agricultural land. Item No.1 is Ac.2.89 ¾ cents in D.No.595/1D. Item No.2 was Ac.4.00 of land in D.No.647/3. This suit was filed against his father, who is defendant No.1 and his sister, who is defendant No.2. Upon the demise of the 2nd defendant, her legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 3 to 5. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 01.03.2021.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 along with this appeal for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the plaint schedule properties in favour of third parties, pending disposal of the appeal.

This Court had granted such an interim direction on 20.05.2021 and subsequently extended the same from time to time.

Defendants 1, 3 and 5 have filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for vacating the said interim orders. It is the case of the plaintiff that non-granting of the order of injunction would result in transfer of the suit schedule property to various third parties, which would further complicate the case and result in multiplicity of proceedings. It is the case of the defendants that the trial Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, depositions and arguments, was pleased to reject the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. This order of dismissal clearly sets out reasons showing that the plaintiff has no right of any nature over the suit schedule land. In such circumstances, the defendants cannot be restrained by any injunction at the behest of the plaintiff.

Having considered the arguments on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that permitting alienation of the land at this stage would result in multiplicity of proceedings and in any event the principle of lis pendens which is available to the plaintiff, being formalized by way of an order of this Court restraining alienation would be appropriate.

In the circumstances, both the applications are disposed of granting injunction against the respondents herein restraining them from alienating or transferring the plaint schedule property or any part of it, in favour of any third parties in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of this appeal.

_________ RRR, J Js.