Smt. K. Krishnaveni vs K. Yadi Reddy And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3402 Tel

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                  AND
               HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI


            CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.283 of 2022
                            Date:05.07.2022

Between:

Smt K. Krishnaveni W/o.Yella Reddy,
D/o.K.Lachi Reddy @ Laxma Reddy,
Aged about 60 yrs, Occu : Housewife,
R/o.H.No.7-50, Tellapur Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Sanga Reddy District
                                              .....Petitioner

     And

K. Yadi Reddy, S/o.late K.Lachi Reddy @ Laxma Reddy,
Aged about 58 yrs, Occu : Business,
R/o.H.No.2-33/3, Manikonda Jagir Village,
Gabipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District & others.

                                              .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.283 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the interlocutory

order dated 01.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.1116 of 2019 in O.S.No.270 of

2019 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge,

Sangareddy.

2. The suit was instituted to grant decree of partition of suit schedule

properties divided into three schedules. In the said suit, the appellant

herein filed I.A.No.1116 of 2019 to grant injunction restraining the

respondents 1 to 6 from alienating, creating any charge, transferring or

mortgaging over the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit.

3. On thorough consideration of the matter, the trial Court prima-facie

found that there was no material placed on record to show that suit

schedule property was purchased by late Mahipal Reddy from out of sale

proceeds of joint family properties to an extent of Ac.3.24 guntas sold by the

family members. The trial Court also noticed that after the death of Mahipal

Reddy, the name of 3rd respondent, who is the wife of Mahipal Reddy, was

mutated in the revenue records and her name has been shown in pattadar

and possessory columns and she was also issued pattadar passbooks and

title deeds. The trial Court noticed that the properties in schedule 'B' are

also not in joint possession and enjoyment of the family members. For these

reasons the trial Court was not inclined to grant injunction as prayed for in

so far as 'B' schedule properties are concerned and injunction was granted

on schedule "A and C" properties.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we do not see any

error in the trial Court order warranting our interference.

5. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear

that the observations made by the trial Court, do not come in the way of

prosecuting the suit. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

_________________________ DR. G.RADHA RANI, J 5th July, 2022 Rds