Telangana High Court

Smt.Pentala Jyothi Latha vs Sri. Sheri Ramakrishna Reddy on 28 May, 2025

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
                       AND
     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 394 & 395 of 2024


JUDGMENT:

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

Since, the issues involved in these CMAs are one and the

same and they are being disposed of this common judgment.

2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.394 and 395 are filed

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.06.2024 passed in

I.A. No.283 of 2022 and I.A. No.101 of 2022 in O.S. No.63 of

2022 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District, L.B. Nagar (for short 'the trial Court').

3. The Appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying

interlocutory applications and plaintiff in the suit filed by her for

Partition and Separate Possession against the respondents herein.

4. The appellant filed the underlying interlocutory

applications i.e., I.A. No.283 of 2022 seeking ad-interim

injunction against respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 from alienating the

subject properties to third parties, and I.A No.101 of 2022 to

grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from

changing or altering the nature of the subject properties, under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 and r/w Section 151 Code of Civil

Procedure (for short 'the CPC').

5. It is the case of the appellant in brief that, she had filed a

suit for Partition and Separate Possession under Order VII Rule 1

r/w Section 26 of CPC seeking decree of partition by dividing

the subject properties and also to declare 1/3rd share each to her

and respondent Nos.1 and 3 and further to declare the Registered

Gift Settlement Deed dated 17.09.2007, Registered Development

Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated

12.07.2016, Registered Sale Deed dated 06.04.2021, Registered

Sale Deed dated 25.06.2021 and Ratification Deed dated

01.09.2021 as null and void.

6. The appellant contends that, she is the elder daughter of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 is the sister of the

appellant, respondent No.4 is the husband of respondent Nos.3,

and respondent No. 5 is the agreement holder vide Registered

Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of

Attorney dated 12.07.2016.

7. Appellant further contends that, the respondent No.1 is the

Karta of the joint family, holding patta and possession of land in

Sy.No. 10 to an extent of Ac 1-36 gts; Sy.No.11 to an extent of

Ac 0.36gts; Sy.No.15 to an extent of Ac 0.35 gts; Sy.No.45/AA

to an extent of Ac 1.05 gts; Sy.No.325/3 to an extent of Ac 0.28

gts; Sy.No. 329 to an extent of Ac 3.29 gts; Sy.No. 356 to an

extent of Ac 0.23 gts; Sy.No. 357 to an extent of Ac 0.07 gts;

Sy.No. 358 to an extent of Ac 0.09 gts; Sy.No. 364 to an extent

ofAc1.33 gts; Sy.No. 367 to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts; Sy.No. 368

to an extent of Ac. 0.06 gts; Sy.No. 369 to an extent of Ac. 0.21

gts; Sy.No. 370 to an extent of Ac. 0.10 gts; Sy.No. 374 to an

extent of Ac. 0.39 gts at Shankarpally Village, Shankarpally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also holding patta for land in

Sy.No.382 to an extent of Ac.4.05 gts at Yelwarthy Village,

Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District in all totaling to an extent of

Ac 23.29 gts.

8. It is contended that, during the pendency of the suit in O.S.

No.17 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, the

respondent No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated

25.06.2021 transferring portions of the land in Sy.No.10/AA2

admeasuring Ac 0-25 gts, Sy.No.11/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-12

gts, Sy.No.15/AA2 admeasuring Ac 0-13 gts, and Sy.No.374/AA

admeasuring Ac 0-18 gts totaling to Ac. 1-28 gts in favour of

respondent No.3, with a malafide intention to deprive the

appellant of her rightful share in the property, thus the sale deed

to be declared as null and void.

9. Appellant contends that, the respondent No.1 and

respondent No.3 entered into a Registered Development

Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated

12.07.2016 with respondent No.5, and entrusted land in Sy.No.

329/A2 admeasuring Ac 1-10 gts and Sy.No. 329/AA1

admeasuring Ac 0-01 gts, totaling to an extent of Ac. 1-11 gts,

which is an ancestral joint family property devolved onto

respondent No.1 from the appellant's grandfather. Thus, the

property entrusted to the respondent No.5 vide document dated

12.07.2016 for Development being ancestral property, the

appellant is entitled to her 1/3rd share on par with the respondent

No.3.

10. Appellant also contends that, respondent No.5 intended to

distribute semi-constructed 99 villas through a Registered

Supplemental Deed. However, on 30.08.2021 the appellant sent

a legal notice to respondent No.5, but before receiving the same,

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly colluded and entered into a

Registered Supplemental Deed dated 01.09.2021, and

accordingly, four villas were allotted to respondent Nos.1 and 3,

without making appellant a party to the aforesaid transaction by

depriving her legitimate share.

11. Appellant further contends that, the half portion of the old

House bearing No.2-6 admeasuring 600 Sq Yds at Shankarpally

Village, open plot No.16 admeasuring 100 Sq Yds in Sy.No. 189

which was registered vide sale deed dated 01.04.1986 and

Kallam open place admeasuring 300 Sq Yds situated at

Shankarpally village fell to the share of respondent No.1 which

are also ancestral properties and thus, the appellant has a

legitimate right of share of partition of 1/3rd share each of them.

12. Appellant contends that, respondent No.1 has purchased

land in Survey. No.604 measuring Ac. 6-03 ½ gts, out of total

extent of Ac.12-07 gts, situated at Kandukoor village, in his

name and in favour of respondent No.2 under a Registered Sale

deed dated 12.11.1987, thus, the above land is also treated as

ancestral property to which the appellant is entitled to her 1/3rd

share.

13. It is further contended that, respondent No.2 has executed

a Registered Gift Settlement deed dated 17.09.2007 in respect of

the land in Sy.No.604/EE to an extent of Ac 3-02 gts. at

Kandukur village, in favour of respondent No.3 which is sham

and nominal; that, the respondent No.1 also executed a registered

sale deed dated 06.04.2021 in favour of respondent No.4 i.e., the

son-in-law in respect of land in Sy.No. 604/E, admeasuring Ac

3-01 gts. at Kandukur village, with a malafide intention to keep

the appellant away from partition.

14. Since, the respondents herein made efforts to alienate the

subject properties to the third parties resulting in deprivation of

the 1/3rd share of the appellant, The appellant herein filed I.A.

No.283 of 2022 in O.S. No.663 of 2022 under Order XXXIX

Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of

appellant/petitioner restraining the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4

from alienating or creating third party interest over the subject

properties till further orders and the trial Court by an interim

order dated 17.11.2021 had initially granted order in favour of

the appellant.

15. The appellant contends that, the trial Court after notice to

respondent and hearing the respective contentions of both parties

in I.A. No. 283 of 2022 passed an order dated 05.06.2024

dismissing the underlying interlocutory application with costs

and vacated the interim injunction order dated 17.11.2021

granted earlier. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated

05.06.2024 passed by the trial Court the appellant herein had

filed the present appeal before this Court.

16. Per contra the respondents contend that, the subject

properties in Survey Nos.10 admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts, Sy.No.11

admeasuring Ac 0-12 gts, and Sy.No.15 admeasuring Ac 0-13

gts, totaling to an extent of Ac.1-10 gts at Shankarpally village

originally belonged to one Sheri Narsimha Reddy, which were

transferred to respondent No.1 vide Registered Gift Settlement

Deed dated 19.07.2008. Subsequently, respondent No.1 sold

these lands along with Sy.No.374/AA totaling to an extent of

Ac.1-28 gts to respondent No.3 through a Registered Sale Deed

dated 25.06.2021. On purchase, the respondent No.3 mutated

her name in the revenue records and obtained an e-passbook and

title deed, which remained unchallenged and legally binding.

17. The respondents also contend that, the original patta was

held by one A. Sudarshanam in Sy.No.329 admeasuring Ac 2-19

gts at Shankarpally village, who sold it to Shri Indrasena Reddy

and respondent No.1 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 13-07-

1970. Further, the land in Sy.No.604 to an extent of Ac 6-03 ½

gts out of Ac 12-07 gts at Kandukur village is originally owned

by Miryala Janakiramulu, who sold the same to respondent No.1

and 2 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.1987. After

purchasing the aforesaid properties, the lands were divided and

respondent No.1 became the absolute owner in Sy.No.604/E to

an extent of Ac 3-01 gts. and respondent No.2 held land in

Sy.No.604/EE to an extent of Ac 3-02 gts.

18. The respondents further contend that, these transactions

establish clear ownership patterns made through the registered

deeds entered into by the respondents and the subsequent

mutations in revenue records create legally recognized title in

favour of the respondents over the mentioned subject properties.

19. It is further contended that, the respondent No. 1 on

06.04.2021 sold land in Sy.No.604/E admeasuring Ac.3-01 gts.

at Kandukur village in favour of respondent No.4 through

Registered Sale Deed. On 17.09.2007, the respondent No.2

transferred land in Sy.No.604/EE admeasuring Ac.3-02 gts. in

favour of respondent No.3 vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed

dated 17.09.2007.

20. The respondents also contends that, the daughters of Late

Veera Reddy has filed suit for partition and separate possession

vide O.S. No.17 of 2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at

Vikarabad in which the appellant herein is arrayed as 'defendant

No.7' and the subject matter pertaining to Schedule "B" "D" to

"F" schedule Properties are part and parcel of subject matter of

O.S. No.17 of 2021 and the appellant instead of claiming her

share in the above suit has filed the underlying Suit.

21. It is further contended that, the respondent No.1 in order to

avoid future disputes with regard to ancestral joint family

properties had settled the claim of the appellant and on the

request of respondent No.1, his brother i.e. Shri Jagan Mohan

Reddy transferred land in Sy.No.364/A admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts

in favour of appellant vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed

dated 19.07.2008 towards her full and final settlement in the

ancestral joint family properties.

22. Heard, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned

Counsel for respondents, and perused the record.

23. We have taken note of respective contentions urged.

24. It is pertinent to note from the averments that, in the suit

vide O.S. No. 17 of 2021 filed by the legal heirs of Late Veera

Reddy for partition and separate possession on the file of Senior

Civil Judge at Chevella, that the appellant herein was arrayed as

defendant No.7.

25. It is to be further noted that the suit schedule properties

'B' and 'D to F' in respect of the appellant in seeking partition

and 1/3rd share are subject matter of suit vide O.S. No.17 of 2021

as filed by daughters of Veera Reddy. The appellant herein

instead of claiming in the above suit which is prior in point of

time had filed the subject suit vide O.S. No. 663 of 2022,

claiming the same to be comprehensive suit. Further, the

appellant did not file the written statement filed by her in O.S.

No.17 of 2021, for this Court to note the stand taken by her

therein.

26. Further, the appellant herein while claiming the subject

properties as ancestral properties has incorporated the self-

acquired properties of respondents herein viz., suit schedule

properties of 'A' 'C' and 'G', which makes her claim as false

and incorrect.

27. It is also relevant to note the 'G' schedule property was

originally sold by one Miryala Janakiramulu in favour of Shri.

Ramakrishna Reddy and Smt. Swaroopa i.e. respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein, vide registered sale deed dated 12.11.1987, which

also was mutated on to their names. Thus, it is observed herein

that the above fact establishes that 'G' schedule property is a

self-acquired property. Hence, the appellant cannot claim it

under the ancestral property.

28. It is also to be noted that, the appellant failed to include

the Ex. R-15 i.e. gift deed executed by Jagan Mohan Reddy in

favour of the appellant in her suit claim, and thus suppressed the

said fact while filing the subject suit. The appellant herein

neither mentioned for the reasons best known about she

receiving a part of this alleged ancestral property in gift from her

paternal uncle, which is also subject matter of suit claim in O.S.

No. 17 of 2021.

29. The trial Court by considering all the above aspects by its

order dated 05.06.2024 issued a final decree in I.A. No.283 of

2022 in O.S. No.663 of 2022, held as under:

i. Para 51: Ex.R-3 is Gift Settlement Deed executed in favour of respondent No.1, Ex.R-4 shows the sale by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, Ex.R-5 shows that Gift Settlement Deed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. Ex.R-7 & Ex.P-14 are the same documents. Ex.R-8 & R- 9 shows 13-B proceedings showing the name of respondent No.1. Ex.R-16 shows sale in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of Ac.6-3 1½ of property in Sy.No.604. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is defendant No.7 in O.S.No.17/2021 and some of the properties as contended by the respondents herein are covered under the suit properties in OS no.17/2021 and still the suit is pending i.e., Ex P-28. Ex R-15 is the gift settlement deed in favour of the petitioner.

ii. Para 52: So it is very well brought on record that the daughters of Late Veera Reddy filed suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.17 2021(old) re-numbered as O.S No. 452 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, in which the petitioner/plaintiff herein is Defendant. No. 7 and Respondents/Defendant Nos. 1,3 and 5 are also parties to the above said partition suit. The subject matter pertaining to Schedule "D" to "F" and other schedule Properties are part and parcel of subject matter of OS.No.17 of 2021. Even It is brought on record that brother of respondent No.1 by name Jagan Mohan Reddy transferred all that land bearing Sy.No.364/A admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts situated at Shankerpally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of petitioner/plaintiff through registered Gift Settlement Deed i.e., R-15, it is pleaded that it was for her full

and final settlement in the ancestral joint family properties and the petitioner/plaintiff in the presence of family elders agreed that she shall not put forth any share against respondents/defendants No.1 to 3 in the remaining properties and the petitioner/plaintiff. This court feels that even for a moment the said contention is believed to be true, the same can be proved before the court only after full length of trial, but not at this stage.

iii. Para 53: On considering the total facts and circumstances, this court feels that whether the property is ancestral property or self-acquired property can be decided only after full length of trial, this petition is filed restraining the respondents No.1, 3 & 4 from alienating the petition schedule property till disposal of suit, but it is suppressed by the petitioner that she is the defendant no.7 in the suit OS no.17 of 2021 filed by the daughters of the Veera Reddy and also that some of the properties herein are covered under the said suit, the present suit is subsequently to the above said suit, this petition is filed to grant ad-interim injunction against the respondents, but this court feels that when other suit is pending before the court of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella in respect of some of the properties here in and other properties, at this juncture this petition for granting interim injunction against the respondents is not maintainable. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner has suppressed material facts before the court, on considering the total facts and circumstances this court feels that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.

30. Though the appellant contends that the Registered

Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable General Power of

Attorney dated 12.07.2016 executed in favour of respondent

No.5, which subsequently was executed in favour of respondent

No.1 and 2, which appellant claim as part of her share in the

subject properties which are standing in the name of the

respondent No.1, it is settled law that no injunction can be

granted against the real owner. Further, the appellant also failed

to produce any document to prove that 'B' schedule property as

ancestral property.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Mehtab Khan Vs.

Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan1 dealing with discretionary power to

grant injunction had held:

"20. In a situation where the learned trial court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The Appellate Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order."

32. The Apex Court in a recent decision in Ramakant

Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others2 while

(2013) 9 SCC 221

(2024) SCC Online SC 3538

reiterating the view expressed in Mohd. Mehtab Khan (supra)

had further observed:

"42. ..........High Courts must not lightly set aside the decision arrived at by the trial court in exercise of its discretion unless the order of the trial court fails to satisfy the parameters as delineated by us in the preceding paragraphs. The failure to engage with these crucial aspects renders the High Court's order deficient, detracting from the objective of rendering substantive and reasoned justice."

33. Further, as the appellant herein suppressed that she is the

defendant No.7 in O.S. No. 17 of 2021 i.e. suit filed prior to the

underlying suit, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has

rightly observed regarding the subject property as ancestral

property or self-acquired property to be only decided after trial.

34. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view

that the subject properties which are claimed as ancestral

properties in the subject suit and liable to be partitioned being

part and parcel of the earlier suit which is already pending vide

O.S. No. 17 of 2021. The outcome in the said suit would have a

direct bearing on the claim being made by the appellant herein in

the subject suit filed by her more particularly being arrayed as