Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kosuru Mamatha vs Kosuru Siva Prasad on 20 September, 2023
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
CMA.No.25 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed questioning the order
in I.A.No.157 of 2021 in O.S.No.17 of 2021. This application is
filed for an injunction and it was allowed on merits.
2. This Court has heard Sri K.Raghuveer, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri V.Nitesh for the main contesting
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the trial
Court committed an error in allowing the application and that
items 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties are self acquired
properties of the father of the appellants and that therefore they
could not be included in the suit schedule itself of the litigation. It
is also contended that the trial Court did not consider the
pleadings and documents correctly.
4. On the other hand, Sri V.Nitesh argues that a perfectly
reasoned order is passed considering the contentions and the
facts. He also submits that the issues raised by the present
appellants/defendants are matters of evidence and till the matter
is finally decided, an interim injunction is necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case to preserve the existing status quo.
5. This Court after considering the submissions notices that
there are seriously disputed issues involved in the matter. The
suit is filed for partition. There are 9 items of the property which
are to be partitioned as per the plaintiffs. The main contention of
the present appellants is that there was a past partition and that
items 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 alone are to be divided under the said
partition. Items 4 and 5 are their self acquired properties of the
contesting defendants/present appellants. Therefore, it is stated
that the same cannot be included as the suit schedule property for
partition.
6. The counter filed to the interlocutory application also raises
this as an essential dispute. Arguments were also advanced on
similar lines.
7. After considering all the submissions, the trial Court held
that the controversy whether the petition schedule properties are
ancestral properties or self acquired properties has to be decided
in the trial. It also held that it is not possible in an interlocutory
stage to decide whether items 4 and 5 are the exclusive properties
of respondents 6 and 7 (present appellants). Their flow of title
etc., can also be decided after a full fledged trial only. Ultimately,
in para 11, it is held that until the issues are decided after the full
fledged trial, it is not possible to decide if the properties are
ancestral properties or are self-acquired properties.
8. In the opinion of this Court, preserving the status quo with
regard to the properties which are the subject matter of the
litigation is an important issue. In the present case, the
impugned order that is passed has discussed the issues raised.
Trial Court also came to a conclusion that before arriving at a final
conclusion and till the rights of the parties are decided in the
main suit on merits, the preservation of the existing status quo is
necessary. That is why the order was passed restraining the
petitioners and the respondents also from alienating the petition
schedule properties.
9. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the trial Court
did not commit any error in passing the impugned order.
Maintaining the properties in the same state is necessary for the
purpose of deciding the lis finally. The impugned order precisely
does the same and therefore, this Court does not find any reason
to interfere with the said order.
10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No
order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any
shall stand dismissed.
__________________________
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J
__________________________________
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
Date: 20.09.2023
KLP
