Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Leela vs Manoj Kumar Reddy on 19 November, 2024
1
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
+C.R.P.No.1784 OF 2024
% 19.11.2024
#
......Petitioner
And:
$
....Respondent.
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri
^Counsel for the respondent :
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
C.R.P.No.1784 OF 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.11.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No
fair copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
C.R.P.No.1784 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri M. Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.V.S.R. Subramanyam, learned counsel
representing Mrs. A. Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the
respondents 2 and 5.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 2018 on the
file of Court of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalle. The
respondent No.1 to 6 herein are the defendants in the said suit.
3. The suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule
property. The plaintiff claimed 1/5th share in the plaint schedule
property. The case of the defendants inter alia was that the
plaintiff had relinquished his claim by relinquishment deed dated
16.07.2015 in 'B' Schedule property of that relinquishment. The
plaintiff's case was that even after such relinquishment, when in
the partition amongst the co-owners (excluding the plaintiff) the
plaint schedule property in O.S.No.151 of 2018 fell to the share of
the father of the plaintiff late Rama Rao, on the death of Rama
Rao the plaintiff will have 1/5th share in the plaint schedule
property. The defendants' further case was that the plaintiff did
not have 1/5th share but 1/125th share in the plaint schedule
property.
4. In the suit the plaintiff-petitioner filed I.A.No.597 of 2018 for
grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from
dispossessing the plaintiff from ground floor of item No.II of the
plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit or until
further orders of the trial court.
5. The learned trial court rejected the application by order
dated 08.07.2019. The appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner being
C.M.A.No.3 of 2019, has also been dismissed by the X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalle by the judgment dated 12.04.2024.
6. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present revision
petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection
by the learned courts below is on the ground that the temporary
injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner, unless the co-
owner are causing damage or mis-appropriation of the property.
He submits that once the trial court was satisfied, that the
property belonged to late Rama Rao, on which there was no
dispute and that even as per the case of the defendant-
respondent, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to some share in
the suit schedule property, the case for grant of temporary
injunction was made out, to restrain the defendants from
dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the plaint schedule
property.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the
case of J. Rajendran Pillai vs. B. Bhasi and others (OP(C)
No.2487 of 2019 of High Court of Kerala.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of
the relinquishment deed of the year 1985, the plaintiff cannot
maintain the suit for partition with respect to the plaint schedule
property. Once the plaintiff had relinquished the plaint schedule
property during the life time of late Rama Rao which he submits is
the part of the 'B' schedule of the relinquishment deed, the
plaintiff is not entitled neither for partition nor for any injunction.
He however, does not dispute the case. The defendant
respondent has set up in the written statement that the plaintiffs
are entitled atleast 1/5th share in the plaint schedule property.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also places reliance
on the same judgment J. Rajendran Pillai (supra) (Para 15).
11. I have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
12. The undisputed facts are that the plaint schedule property
belonged to one Rama Rao, the father of the plaintiff and the
defendants 2 to 4 and the husband of the defendant No.1. the
defendant/respondents 5 and 6 are the sons of the 2nd defendant-
respondent.
13. The trial court has also recorded that the plaintiff and the
defendants are the co-owners of the suit schedule property.
Consequently, the submission is that the rejection cannot be
sustained as the temporary injunction can be granted in favour of
one or the other the owner against the co-owner. Even if such
co-owner interferes with the possession of the other co-owner
and tries to dispossess. The prayer was to restrain the
defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff petitioner.
14. In view of the undisputed facts as noted above that the
plaint schedule property belongs to the common ancestor G.
Rama Rao the father of the plaintiff petitioner and the defendant
respondent and the husband of the defendant No.1 and also the
case of the defendant-respondent, the plaintiff is entitled for
1/125th share (this court is not expressing any view on that aspect
which is the subject matter of trial court), the case for grant of
temporary injunction was made out as the plaintiff's case was
that he was in possession of the ground floor of Item No.2 of the
plaint schedule property. The co-owner has a right not to
dispossess by other co-owner, as also not to cause interference
in the exercise of his right to enjoy the property. The proposition
that the injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner is an
absolute proposition of law but is not in certain circumstances co-
owner also entitled for grant of temporary injunction.
15. In view of the findings recorded by the trial court at this
stage, on consideration of the case of the parties as also that the
plaintiff has prima facie, the rejection of the application for
temporary injunction is not justified. The appellate court has also
committed the same error as the trial court in dismissing the
appeal.
16. This Court of the considered view that the case for
temporary injunction is made out.
17. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. It is
provided that the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to
the plaint schedule property till final disposal of the suit. No order
as to costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Dated:19.11.2024
Note:
L.R copy to be marked
B/o.Gk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
C.R.P.No.1784 OF 2024
Date:19.11.2024.
Gk.
