Sattamma Venkatamma vs Akula Lakshmi Anjamma,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6906 Tel

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
                                AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

                   C.M.A. NOs.362 and 363 of 2016


                         DATED:14-09-2016

Between:

Sattamma                             ... Appellant

And

Akula Lakshmi
and others                           ... Respondents

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT :Mr. Mohammed Osman Shaheed, for Mr. Mohammed Adnan

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 10: -

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.11 : Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                       2                     CVNR, J & GSP, J
                                                     CMA Nos.362 and 363/2016

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)

These two C.M.As arise out of a common order dt.8.3.2016 in I.A.

Nos.3573 and 3574 of 2014 in O.S. No.1385 of 2014 respectively on the

file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 -cum-

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy

District.

We have heard Mr. Mohammed Osman Shaheed, learned counsel,

representing Mr. Mohammed Adnan, learned for the appellant, and Mr.

G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel representing respondent No.11.

At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. Mohammed

Osman Shaheed submitted that his client is pressing the C.M.A.s only

against respondent No.11, developer, and that Memos to that effect

have also been filed in the C.M.As.

The appellant filed the aforementioned suit for partition and

separate possession of her share. It is her pleaded case that respondent

No.1 is her sister, respondent No.2 is her brother and respondent Nos.3

to 5 are children of respondent No.2. She has further pleaded that the

suit schedule property was originally owned by late Jeediginjala Danaiah,

father of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2, that behind the

back of the appellant, respondent No.2 sold the property to respondent

No.6 who alienated the same along with some other property to

respondent Nos.7 and 9, and that respondent Nos.7 to 10 have entered

into a development agreement with respondent No.11. She has filed I.A.

No.3174 of 2014 for interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.7 to

11 from changing the nature of the petition schedule property either in 3 CVNR, J & GSP, J CMA Nos.362 and 363/2016

part or in whole, either directly or through their developer etc. She has

also filed I.A. No.3573 of 2014 for an injunction restraining respondent

Nos.7 to 11 from alienating the petition schedule property either in part

or in whole, by registered or unregistered documents in favour of third

parties. These applications were resisted by respondent Nos.7 to 11.

Upon considering the respective pleadings and the documents filed by

the parties, the lower Court has dismissed both the I.As.

The necessity for us to decide the appeals on merits is obviated

for the simple reason that the appellants have pressed the CMAs qua

respondent No.11 only. Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for

respondent No.11, submitted that his client is only a developer, who

entered into development agreement with respondent Nos.7 to 10 as per

which his client is entitled to the structures constructed by it to the

extent of 49%, while leaving balance 51% to the share of respondent

Nos.7 to 10. He has further submitted that even if respondent No.11

develops the property, it sells only 49% of the share and the appellant

can enforce her claim in respect of the balance 51% property available

with respondent Nos.7 to 10. These submissions of the learned counsel

for respondent No.11 are not disputed by the learned counsel for the

appellant. As the appellant has not pressed these CMAs against any

other respondent, except respondent No.11 and as the said respondent

is entitled to sell only 49% of the developed property, no prejudice will

be caused to the appellant if it is not prevented from either developing

or alienating the properties to third parties, as 51% of the property is

still left untouched by respondent No.11.

                                    4                       CVNR, J & GSP, J
                                                    CMA Nos.362 and 363/2016

For the aforementioned reasons and subject to the above

observations, the C.M.As are dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.As., C.M.A.M.P. Nos.723 and

724 of 2016 filed in the respective C.M.As., shall stand disposed of as

infructuous.

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

_________________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J 14-09-2016

bnr