Smt.S.Laxmi Bai vs S.Narayana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2125 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt.S.Laxmi Bai vs S.Narayana on 13 February, 2025

Author: T.Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, N.Tukaramji

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                            CMA No.523 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel

appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order

dt.22.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2019 in O.S.No.942 of 2019 on the file

of the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed for

partition of the suit schedule property. In the aforesaid suit, the appellants

herein have filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the

respondents from alienating or creating any third party interest over the

petition schedule property, on the ground that subject property has been

acquired by the 1st respondent out of the nucleus joint family property and

thus, being liable for partition.

4. However, the Court below taking note of the fact that initial burden is

on the appellants herein to prove that the suit schedule property is acquired

out of the nucleus joint family properties in order to claim the same to be

partitioned, however noted that the suit schedule property is the self-

acquired property of the 1st respondent herein and thus, declined to grant

injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule

property.

5. It is settled position of law that the person alleging the property to be

a joint family property is required to prima facie establish that the said

property has been acquired out of nucleus joint family and is not self-

acquired property for the respondents to be restrained from interfering (see

Bhagw at Sharan (died per LR s.) v/ s. Purushottam 1 ).

6. Since, the appellant failed to prima facie demonstrate the said factum

of the property being joint family property, the Court below had dismissed

the interlocutory application and the said finding in the considered opinion of

this Court does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, the appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if

any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

Date:13.02.2025 ________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J GJ

(2020) 06 SCC 387