Telangana High Court
Smt. Vijaya Laxmi vs Laxmamma on 27 March, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.489 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order
dated 04.09.2023 in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.1180 of 2022
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kukatpally, Ranga
Reddy District.
2. The appellant herein has filed a petition before the trial
Court vide I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.1180 of 2022, for
granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit schedule
property and not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour
of third parties. The trial Court after considering the arguments
of both sides dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said
Order, appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended
that appellant has filed all the required documents under
Exs.P1 to P7 to substantiate her stand. She filed a suit for
partition of the joint family property and requested for not to
alienate the suit schedule property, as the respondents have no
right to sell the entire property. Appellant sought for 1/7th share
over the total property. She denied the contents of the counter
filed by the respondents and requested the Court to set aside
the Order passed by the trial Court.
4. Appellant herein has filed the Suit vide O.S.No.1180 of
2022, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
property against the respondents and stated that one Advaiah
was the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot bearing
No.20, admeasuring 550 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.3, situated at Raidurg
Pan Maqta Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District, by
virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.8005 of
1999, dated 15.11.1999. She further stated that he died
intestate on 13.06.2002, leaving behind respondents No.1 to 5
and the appellant herein as his legal heirs. She has also filed
the pedigree of the Advaiah in detail in the plaint and sought for
1/7th share in the suit schedule property. During the pendency
of the suit, she filed a petition for granting of ad-interim
injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and also sought for not to alienate the property to the
third parties during the pendency of the suit. In the said
petition, appellant herein stated that when she requested for
partition on 30.05.2022, respondents did not agree. Hence, she
filed the suit, but the trial Court observed that she cannot ask
for two reliefs in one petition and moreover she stated that they
are in joint possession and injunction cannot be granted against
the co-owners and accordingly dismissed the petition. Perusal of
the plaint shows that appellant along with respondents are in
joint possession of the suit schedule property, as such she paid
the Court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 34(2) of A.P.C.F & S.V
Act. She has filed Ex.P1 to show that suit property belongs to
her grandfather.
5. In the counter filed by the respondents, they denied all
the allegations and stated that they acquired the property from
the then Government in 2012 by way of Deeds of Conveyance.
They have also filed the deeds of conveyance, which are in the
name of respondent No.1 and in the name of wife of respondent
No.2 and further stated that appellant has already received her
share at the time of her marriage. The father of the appellant
and respondents No.2 to 5 had already gifted a plot to the
appellant measuring an extent of 150 Sq.yrds in Mettuguda,
Secunderabad and she had constructed a house and living in
that. Moreover, respondent No.2 gave Rs.8,00,000/- to the
appellant at the time of her house construction and thus she is
not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property.
6. As the appellant herein filed the suit for partition,
considering the above arguments the question of granting
injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her
peaceful possession does not arise as she failed to prove that
she is in possession of the suit schedule property. Whether the
property pertains to Advaiah or it pertains to Laxmamma or to
the wife of respondent No.2 i.e., N.Balamani is to be decided by
the trial Court after adducing evidence of both sides and it is a
triable issue. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and
reasonable to direct the respondents not to alienate the suit
schedule property in favour of third parties during the pendency
of the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
7. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed by setting aside the Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.31
of 2022 in O.S.No.1180 of 2022, dated 04.09.2023. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 27.03.2025
tri
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 489 of 2023
(Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
DATE: 27.03.2025
TRI
