Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dvss, J & vs ,J on 14 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: A.S.No.101 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE.
DVSS, J & VS,J
14.02.2022
I.A.No.1 of 2021
Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Venkaiah,
learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner, who is the unsuccessful
plaintiff in the suit, has filed this appeal. The
suit was filed for partition. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit
was wrongly dismissed on erroneous grounds. A
major issue that arouse in the suit was about
the status of the petitioner as the adopted
daughter or the biological daughter of their
parents. An application for DNA test etc., were
also made. In any view of the matter, after
considering the evidence on record, the lower
Court dismissed the suit. Assailing the same,
present appeal is filed.
Sri A.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner argues that they have very strong
grounds to succeed in the appeal. It is his
contention that if the properties, which are the
subject matter of the suit are alienated, third
parties rights would be created and there would
be difficulties in the future in realizing the fruits
of the decree. He points out that he did not have
injunction in the lower Court and that the
application filed by him has not been heard and
disposed on merits.
Learned counsel states that it is very
clearly averred in para No.10 of the affidavit that
alienations have already taken place. Therefore,
he prays for an order of injunction or at least an
order of status quo.
Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the
respondents, vehemently opposes the application
and submits that the order of the lower Court
was passed on merits of the matter. The request
for DNA test was negatived. According to him,
the appellant has taken diametrically opposite
stands. He even alleges that she attempted to
play fraud on the Court.
Learned counsel points out that since the
petitioner did not have an injunction in her
favour, granting an interim order at this stage is
not called for. He also relies upon the judgment
of learned Division Bench of this Court reported
in Duvvala Ilaiah and others v. Duvvala
Ramaiah and others1. Learned counsel argues
on the basis of this judgment that any alienation
pending the suit will be governed by the principle
lis pendens. Therefore, there is no need or
necessary to grant order at this stage, as per
him.
It is a fact that there are alienations.
During the course of his submission, the learned
counsel for the respondent agrees that an
alienation has already been taken place in favour
of defendant No.3 by defendant No.1 and further
transactions have also taken place.
Considering all the above, this Court is of
the opinion that if the property alienated, there
would be difficulties in future for realization of
the fruits of the decree. The suit is for partition
and if the property is alienated to the third
parties, division by metes and bounds may also
become difficult.
1997 (6) ALT 95 (D.B.)
While the submission of Sri C.Venkaiah, the
learned counsel for the respondents is
appreciated, since it is based on the judgment of
the Division Bench, the fact remains that in this
case it is clearly averred that alienations have
already taken place. If further third parties
interests are created, it would lead to difficulties
in the future. Hence, keeping the interest of
both the parties in mind even though the
doctrine of lis pendens would apply, this Court is
of the opinion that there should a direction to
the respondents to maintain the existing status
quo as on date with regard to alienations of the
suit schedule property. It is made clear that if
there is pressing necessity, the respondents can
move an application before this Court for
appropriate reliefs.
List on 07.03.2022.
__________
DVSS, J
__________
VS, J
BSP
