Telangana High Court
Smt.Varada Sudha Rani And 2 Others vs Sri.Lingala Prakash Lingam And 7 ... on 29 November, 2021
Bench: P Naveen Rao, P.Sree Sudha
1 PNRJ + PSSJ
CMA 491 OF 2021
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
C.M.A.No. 491 OF 2021
Date : 29.11.2021
Between:
Smt Varada Sudha Rani and 2 Others
W/o V Vivekananda Aged about 50 years
Occ House wife R/o Flat no 509
5th floor Sree Sree Hieghts
Kukatpally
Medchal District Telangana State PIN500 072
Petitioner
And
Sri Lingala Prakash Lingam and 7 Others
S/o Late L Bhagya Lingam Aged about 72 Occ Business R/o
162754/A Gaddiannaram Dilsuknagar Hyderabad PIN500 059
Respondents
The Court made the following:
2 PNRJ + PSSJ
CMA 491 OF 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
C.M.A.No. 491 OF 2021
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)
We have heard learned counsel for plaintiffs Sri P Rama Sharan
Sharma and learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 4
Sri J Prabhakar.
2. Petitioners herein are plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience,
parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.
Plaintiffs have instituted OS No. 309 of 2019 in the Court of the XV
Additional District Judge, R.R. District at Kukatpally praying to grant the
following reliefs:
a) To partition the suit schedule properties No. I to III into two
parts and allot 2/5th part to each of the plaintiffs and
defendants nos.2 and 3 with possession.
b) To direct the delivery of possession of the rightful parts of the
plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
c) To declare that the Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing NO.
5350 of 2001 dated 3.10.2001 in favour of 4th defendant is not
binding on the extent of plaintiffs share..
d) ....
3. Plaintiffs filed I A No. 2418 of 2019 under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 to grant temporary injunction restraining respondent No.1 from
alienating the petition schedule properties in favour of third parties.
3 PNRJ + PSSJ
CMA 491 OF 2021
4. The trial Court on due consideration of the respective
submissions, dismissed the said application, against which this appeal is
preferred.
5. Shorn of details, suffice to note at this stage that
Mr Lingala Sattaiah and Mr Bhagya Lingam are natural brothers.
Bhagya Lingam was not blessed with children. According to plaintiffs,
Bhagya Lingam adopted Lingala Prakash Lingam, third son of Lingana
Sattaiah and Puli Annamma @ Annapurna, Daughter of Anasuyamma,
who is first daughter of Lingala Sattaiah. Plaintiffs assert that late
Annapurna is entitled to share in the property belonging to Mr Bhagya
Lingam.
6. The first defendant is disputing the claim of plaintiffs that
their mother was adopted by Bhagya Lingam and therefore denies the
claims of plaintiffs for share in the property owned by Bhagya Lingam.
7. While considering the application to grant injunction, the
trial Court went into rival claims of status of adoption of Annapurna by
Bhagya Lingam and recorded a finding that there was no proof of
adoption of Annapurna by Bhagya Lingam and having held so, dismissed
the application.
8. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submits that the above finding
of the trial Court in the interlocutory application comes in the way of
prosecuting the main suit and trial Court ought not to have gone into the
merits of the controversy involved in the suit and decided the issue of
status of adoption of Annpurna by Bhagya Lingam.
9. Having regard to this submission, learned senior counsel
fairly submits that he has no objection, if Court clarifies that findings
4 PNRJ + PSSJ
CMA 491 OF 2021
recorded by the trial Court are only for the purpose of consideration of
the interlocutory application and such findings have no bearing on the
controversy involved in the suit.
10. We appreciate the fair submission of the learned senior
counsel. It is made clear that discussion in the order dated 6.9.2021
leading to dismissing I.A. No. 2418 of 2019 in O.S. No. 309 of 2019 is
only for the purpose of assessing prima facie case and balance of
convenience. The discussion on the claim of plaintiffs on adoption of
Annapurna by Bhagya Lingam and observations made therein shall have
no bearing on the rival claims set up in the suit. It is also needless to
observe that having regard to the provision in Section 52 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 interests of plaintiffs are safeguarded even if any
transactions take place during the pendency of the suit and do not call
for any further orders at this stage.
11. Subject to above, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications if any pending, stands closed.
____________________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J
___________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date : 29.11.2021.
Tvk
5 PNRJ + PSSJ
CMA 491 OF 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
C.M.A.No. 491 OF 2021
Date 29.11.2021
