Sri Paruchuri Narasimha Rao vs Paruchuri Suresh Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 7390 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                        MAIN CASE: S.A.No.356 of 2022
                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                OFFICE
No
         Date                                ORDER                                  NOTE


03    26.09.2022   SRS,J
                                       I.A.No.1 of 2022

                           This application is filed under Order
                   XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ad-interim
                   injunction restraining the respondents from

alienating the suit schedule property in I.S.No.281 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Appellants are plaintiffs in the suit. Suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs. Plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.3.58 cents in S.No.179/1 of Chinnakakani village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant are brothers. 2nd defendant is son and 3rd defendant is daughter of 1st defendant. Pending the suit, sole plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.12.2013 decreed the suit and preliminary decree was passed dividing the schedule property into two equal shares. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants filed appeal A.S.No.43 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Guntur

and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2022 dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, the above second appeal is filed.

Second appeal was admitted on 17.08.2022. While admitting the second appeal, this Court directed the learned counsel for appellants to take out personal notice to respondents in I.A.No.1 of 2022. In compliance, proof of service was filed. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel representing the respondents filed counter.

Suit was filed for partition of plaint schedule property. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit remained exparte. Ex B-5 Will, as per evidence was executed in favour 2nd defendant. However, the beneficiary remained exparte. The apprehension of appellants is taking advantage of dismissal of suit, respondents are making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint schedule properties. And that any alienation pending disposal of the second appeal will create third party interest, resulting multiplicity of proceedings. 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit.

Considering the averments that the respondents are taking steps to alienate the schedule property and also the averments in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the interest of the parties to the litigation and any alienation will create third party interest and multiplicity of

proceedings, there shall be injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule property pending disposal of the second appeal.

In case, respondents intended to alienate the plaint schedule property pending disposal of second appeal, they are liberty to move an application before the Court seeking permission and the same will be considered on merits.

__________ SRS, J PVD