Telangana High Court
Beeram Deepthi Chandrika vs P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, on 24 March, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.225, 226 & 287 of 2023
AND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1478 & 1645 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)
We have heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel,
argued on behalf of Sri T.Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel on record
for the appellants and petitioners in C.M.A.Nos.225, 226 and 287
of 2023 and C.R.P.No.1478 of 2023 and respondents in
C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023; Sri H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel,
argued on behalf of Sri S.Amarendar Reddy, learned counsel on
record for the respondent No.1 and petitioner in C.M.A.Nos.225,
226 and 287 of 2023 and C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023 and respondent
in C.R.P.No.1478 of 2023.
2. As the suit schedule properties, issues and the reliefs sought
in the impugned orders are intertwined, the civil miscellaneous
appeals and the civil revision petitions were heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants/defendant Nos.1
and 2 (wife and her father) and respondent No.1/plaintiff (husband)
2 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
in C.M.A.Nos.225 and 226 of 2023 are hereinafter be referred as
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff respectively as per the array in
O.S.No.9 of 2022.
4. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff/P.Shiva
Shanker Reddy/husband and the defendant No.1/B.Deepthi
Chandrika/wife are legally wedded couple. However, due to
matrimonial discord, the husband filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2022
seeking declaration of title over the House bearing No.10-50 in Plot
No.114, admeasuring 213.89 square yards, with construction of
three floors plus pent house having six portions and a single room,
situated in Sy.Nos.9, 10, 11, 31 and 32, at Block No.9, Gayathri
Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, (suit 'A' schedule property) and House bearing
No.14-264/A/3, in Plot No.11, admeasuring 250.55 square yards
with construction of three floors plus pent house having eight
portions, situated in Survey No.352/A, at Housing Board Colony,
Nagarkurnool Revenue Mandal, (suit 'B' schedule property) and
permanent injunction against the wife and her father and other
defendants and also to direct the defendants to pay rents to him.
5. The plaintiff/husband's case is that suit schedule 'A' property
was purchased under registered sale deed showing himself and
3 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
defendant No.1-wife as vendees and the suit schedule 'B' property
was purchased in the name of defendant No.1/wife as vendee,
albeit the sale consideration was paid from his savings and by
availing home loan and the defendant No.1-wife being home maker
has no other source of income itself is evidencing the fact that the
sale consideration was paid by him, nominally in the name of
defendant No.1-wife and he is the de jure owner of the suit 'A' and
'B' schedule properties. As such, he is entitled for declaration and
rents and the defendant No.1-wife and her father/defendant No.2
shall not interfere with his possession. Therefore, filed I.A.No.35 of
2022 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant
No.1-wife, from alienating suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties;
I.A.No.36 of 2022 restraining the wife/defendant No.1 and her
father/defendant No.2 from interfering into his possession of suit
schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and I.A.No.37 of 2022 to direct the
tenants/defendant Nos.3 to 14 for depositing the rents of the suit
'A' and 'B' properties, pending the suit.
6. On the other hand, the defendant No.1-wife filed the suit in
O.S.No.1 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction against her
husband and father-in-law pleading that she had purchased the
house property (which is suit 'B' schedule property in O.S.No.9 of
4 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
2022) vide registered sale deed and is in peaceful possession of
the same. Further claimed that the property was purchased with
the help of her father particularly for her and her daughter's
maintenance and future expenses. Thus, asserted that the
husband and his father have no role or interest in any manner over
the schedule property and by filing I.A.No.9 of 2023 sought for
temporary injunction against the plaintiff-husband and his father
over the suit schedule property.
7. In the impugned common order dated 04.04.2023 passed in
I.A.Nos.35, 36 and 37 of 2022, the trial Court allowed the prayer to
restrain the defendant No.1-wife from alienating the suit schedule
'A' and 'B' properties and partly allowed the prayer for temporary
injunction restraining the defendant No.2/father-in-law of the
husband, and his relatives from interfering with the suit schedule
'A' property. Further, the defendant No.1-wife, her father/defendant
No.2 and their relatives are restrained from interfering with the
residential portion in occupation of the husband in the ground floor
of the suit 'B' schedule house property. Furthermore, the prayer
for depositing of rents was partly allowed by directing the
tenants/defendant Nos.3 to 7 of the suit 'A' schedule property to
pay monthly rents to the husband/plaintiff from April, 2023.
5 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
However, the defendant No.1-wife is permitted to collect the rents
from the suit schedule 'B' property excluding the residential portion
occupied by the plaintiff/husband in the ground floor to meet her
and her daughter's monthly maintenance. In consequence,
dismissed the prayer of the defendant No.1-wife to grant temporary
injunction in the I.A.No. 9 of 2023.
8.a. Aggrieved by the order of restraint to alienate the schedule
properties in I.A.Nos. 35 and 37 of 2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2022 the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 (wife and her father) and dismissal of
petition to grant temporary injunction against the husband to
interfere with the suit 'B' schedule property in I.A.No.9 of 2022 in
O.S.No.1 of 2023 the defendant No.1-wife preferred
C.M.A.Nos.225,226 and 287 of 2023 respectively.
8.b. Against the order of payment of rents of suit 'A' schedule
property to the plaintiff to pay EMIs in I.A.No.37 of 2022 the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 (wife and her father) filed C.R.P.No.1478 of
2023 and aggrieved by the order in favour of the defendant No.1-
wife to collect rents of the suit 'B' schedule property, the plaintiff-
husband preferred C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023.
6 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
9. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the defendant No.1-
wife contested that the Court below had disregarded the essential
fact that evidently the registered documents are establishing that
the defendant-wife is co-owner and owner of the suit 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties respectively, as such passing temporary
injunction is unsustainable in law. Further, pending trial, without
there being evidence accepting the claim of the plaintiff-husband
about payment of consideration is wholly unreasonable. That
apart, the pleadings of the defendant No.1-wife in the
counter/written statement and also in her suit that the suit 'A'
schedule property was transferred by her father/defendant No.2 at
a nominal rate and even the sale consideration said to have
availed from loan was returned by her father. Further the suit 'B'
schedule property is exclusively in her name and bought by her
father has been ignored. Therefore, granting interim injunction from
alienation in respect of suit schedule properties is against the
factual and legal position. Further pleaded that, the Court below
rightly considered and permitted the defendant No.1-wife to receive
rents from suit schedule 'B' property and the same principle should
have been applied even to the suit 'A' schedule property. Hence,
prayed for interference.
7 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
10. In response, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff-
husband has besought in support of the impugned order, except
the direction in favour of the defendant No.1-wife to collect rents.
He submits that the prayer in the application was for a direction to
the tenants for depositing the rents in the Court pending the suit.
However, the Court traversing the scope of the petition, granted
favourable direction to the wife to collect rents, which is
unacceptable, and considering the pleadings, the Court if not
directed to deposit the rents, should have given a direction to the
plaintiff-husband for collection of rents. Thus, prayed for
reconsidering the impugned common order to this extent and to
dismiss the other claims of the defendant-wife in her appeals and
the revision petition.
11. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused
the material on record.
12. In the adverse pleadings, the aspect for determination would
be whether the temporary injunction and the direction to collect the
rents in the impugned common order is sustainable in the facts and
law?
8 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
13. Before examining the merits, it would be appropriate to note
the suit reliefs of the plaintiff-husband and the defendant-wife in
O.S.Nos.9 of 2022 and 1 of 2023.
14. In O.S.No.9 of 2022 the plaintiff-husband prayed for
declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit 'A' & 'B'
schedule properties; to grant permanent injunction against the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the suit 'A' & 'B' schedule properties; to direct the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.13,65,794/- with interest
@ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
realization; to direct the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of
Rs.26,95,900/- collected from the tenants from November, 2019 to
March, 2022 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing
of the suit till the date of realization; and that the plaintiff is entitled
to receive the rental amounts from the suit 'A' & 'B' schedule
properties from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree.
15. In O.S.No.1 of 2023 the defendant No.1-wife sought for
permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering
with possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
9 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
16. The relationship between the parties and the fact that the
sale deed of the suit 'A' schedule property is in the names of the
plaintiff-husband and defendant No.1-wife and the suit 'B' schedule
property in the name of defendant No.1-wife is not in dispute.
17. The plaintiff-husband is asserting that he paid entire sale
consideration for the suit schedule properties. In contrast, the
defendant No.1-wife is also claiming that the sale consideration for
the suit schedule properties was paid by her father. Whether
inclusion of name of defendant No.1-wife in the sale deed was
nominal or gracious or benami and the veracity of the pleading of
the defendant No.1-wife as to payment of consideration by her
father can only be determined on appreciation of material evidence
in the trial. At the stage of interlocutory application, basing on the
bank statements drawing conclusions would not be proper and
premature.
18. Howsoever by the registered sale deeds, the plaintiff-
husband and defendant No.1-wife are the title holders of the suit
'A' schedule property and the defendant No.1-wife is the owner of
suit 'B' schedule property.
10 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
19. By now, it is well settled that when the ownership over the
property is legally valid and complete, the co-owner and owner are
entitled to the essentials of ownership i.e. right to possession, right
to enjoyment and right to dispose.
20. In so far as the suit 'A' schedule property, at this
interlocutory stage basing on the sale deed, prima facie it shall be
held that, the plaintiff-husband and the defendant No.1-wife are the
co-owners. It is pertinent to note that, a co-owner would have
interest in every portion of property, irrespective of share, because
of joint ownership. For this reason, the general view is that
injunction cannot be maintained against co-owner, nonetheless
there is no absolute bar, especially in interlocutory stage, where
the title is disputed in the suit. The plaintiff-husband in the stance
of co-owner irrespective of possession will have right to use the
joint property along with the co-owner with similar rights. Therefore
a co-sharer cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to the interests of
the other. In the present case as the defendant No.1-wife has
pleaded exclusive rights over the suit schedule properties on the
ground that sale consideration was paid by her father and
alienation or creation of interests of the third parties over the
property would certainly cause prejudice to the interests of the
11 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
plaintiff-husband in the undivided share of the suit 'A' schedule
property. Thus pending the suit, granting injunction against the
defendant No.1-wife, not to alienate the suit 'A' schedule property
is found justified.
21. In regard to suit 'B' schedule property, as noted, the
registered sale is deed in the name of defendant No.1-wife and the
plaintiff-husband would be third party. Even though the payment of
consideration is in question, in principle, restraining the owner from
enjoyment of property including alienation is not defendable. In the
peculiar pleadings of the parties in the suits and to secure the
interests and to avoid further complications and multiplicity of
litigation, we are of the considered view that, in case the defendant
No.1-wife is intending to alienate or create charge or third party
interests over the suit 'B' schedule property, the vendee or the
concerned shall be informed about the pendency of the suits
O.S.No.9 of 2022 and O.S.No.1 of 2023 and that the contract or
arrangement would be subject to the result of these suits and this
fact shall be in unequivocal terms reflected in the document/deed
that would be executed by the defendant No.1-wife. In these terms
the impugned order relating to suit 'B' schedule property has to be
modified.
12 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
22. Further, the defendant No.1-wife has accepted that the
plaintiff-husband used to be in occupation of one portion in the
ground floor of suit 'B' schedule property, but presently not. Per
contra, the plaintiff-husband asserted that he is still in possession
of that portion.
23. Having regard to the assertions and the issues to be
determined in the suit and agreed possession of the portion in suit
'B' schedule property by the husband, we deem it appropriate to
direct the defendant No.1-wife not to interfere with the settled
possession of the portion in which the plaintiff-husband is in
possession, pending suit is appropriate.
24. In regard to collection of rents, in the pleadings it has been
admitted by the defendant No.1-wife that the rental amount from
the suit 'A' schedule property heretofore sent to the plaintiff-
husband to clear the monthly installments of the loan. So far as the
suit schedule 'B' property, the claim of the wife is that the property
was purchased by her father in her name for the future
maintenance of herself and her daughter. Whether the plaintiff-
husband is entitled for rents from the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule
properties and at the same time whether the defendant No.1-wife
is entitled for share in suit 'A' schedule property and perpetual
13 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
injunction against the plaintiff-husband would be the aspect for
determination in the suits.
25. Therefore, having regard to the previous arrangement
between the parties, we find no impropriety in the interim
arrangement to meet the continuance of payment of the loan
instalments as earlier, directing the plaintiff-husband to receive the
rental amounts from suit 'A' schedule property and having regard
to the pleadings of the defendant No.1-wife and her title over the
suit 'B' schedule property, allowing her to receive the rental
amounts out of suit schedule 'B' property, saving the portion in
occupation of the husband is befitting in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
26. In this view, the findings in the impugned common order
except for granting injunction against the defendant No.1-wife to
alienate the suit 'B' schedule property, deserves affirmation.
27. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.225 of 2023 is partly allowed by
setting aside the temporary injunction restraining the defendant
No.1-wife to alienate the suit 'B' schedule property, with a direction
that any alienation or creation of third party interest in the suit 'B'
schedule property would be subject to result of the pending suits
14 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cmas_225,226&287 and crps_1478&1645_2023
i.e. O.S.No.9 of 2022 and O.S.No.1 of 2023 and the defendant
No.1-wife shall make sure that the relevant deed/document shall
reflect an averment to that effect. Rest of the order in I.A.No.35 of
2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2022 stands affirmed.
28. C.M.A.No.226 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff-husband
questioning the order in I.A.No.36 of 2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2022 and
the C.M.A.No.287 of 2023 filed by the defendant No.1-wife against
the order in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, C.R.P.No.1478
of 2023 filed by the defendant No.1-wife and C.R.P.No.1645 of
2023 filed by the plaintiff-husband challenging the order in
I.A.No.37 of 2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2022 are dismissed by confirming
the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned common
order. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands
closed.
_______________
P.SAM KOSHY,J
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date :24.03.2025
CCM
