Manorama W/O Mallalahalli ... vs Vijayratnam Narsayya Gaddam And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5664 Bom

ao.8.21                                                                                                 1/2


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        Appeal Against Order No.8 of 2021
                           Manorama w/o Mallalahalli Manjunath
                                           vs.
                          Vijayratnam Narsayya Gaddam & others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                   Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                           Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Appellant.


                                            CORAM           : S.M. MODAK, J.

                                            DATE            : 25th MARCH, 2021.

                                            Heard      the     learned      Advocate           for     the

appellant-original plaintiff.

The trial court has refused to grant injunction. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after six weeks.

Civil Application [CAA] No.10/2021:

Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant-original plaintiff.

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the brothers and respondent No.3 is the sister of the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant has filed a suit for partition along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. Shri Narsayya Gaddam, the father of all these parties, expired in the year 1969. Respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the brothers, clandestinely mutated their names to the exclusion of the appellant and respondent No.3. They relied upon a oral partition. The appellant claims that she is not aware of this mutation.

ao.8.21 2/2

The appellant came to know about the desire of respondent Nos.1 & 2 to sell the property and that is why, she has filed a partition suit. The trial Court has refused to grant injunction. Considering the time span in between the mutation and the filing of this suit, this Court is not inclined to grant ex parte injunction. However, this Court feels that order directing the parties to maintain the status quo will serve the purpose. Hence, the following order :

are directed to maintain the status quo about the suit property, as it stands today, till appearances of the contesting respondents.

● The appellant to serve all the respondents by R.P.A.D. by sending them necessary documents in addition to usual mode of service.

JUDGE *sandesh