The High Court · 2025

Smt.Cherupu Rama Devi, W/9 occ. House-wife, Rio. H.No. 3-e_655,'R;;; cJr,i'.1, (ud n";:". , " ,'-,", !a^t9 gAV_odhya Ramaiah, Aged about 70 vears. Hanamakonda 2 3 4 Smt.Madasu @ Cherupu Vijgya.!qf1sn-mi, Wo. Sri.Madan Mohan, aged about s1 years, occ House-wife nlo.H ruo 5_ildeo/il5Bfcor"rv, xrirtufi-""". Nagar, LB Nagar, Hyderabad. Madas Rohit, S/o. Sri.Madan Moah,Aged about 2Z years, Occ_ Not known. R/o. H No.3-1-580/1 , SBH Cotony. k"tirthr; tGs;rli"a r.rrsrr, Hyderabad Chepuru Dhananiava. S/o Late Gopaiah, Aged about 74 years Occ: Agricutture, Retd. Emotove" nl". Ai"ii"i,i Vii;fi "K";rrudram -5-6Y66o,Iiumaraparty Mahabubnaqra Distriit presentry Rd. Hlr.j; Hanamkonda. (The defendant lrio. + aooeJai;.;l; N" 36 of2o24a,owed by the Honorable Court ) Mandat, .RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to grant ad interim injunction orders restraining the Defendants/Respondents from alienating or creating third party charge in respect of the schedule properties ti disposal of this Appeal. SCHEDULE OF PROP ERTlES a Sq.yds Ramaiah. HOUSING PROPERTIES l\,llME IN HANAMKONDA Sl.No- Property stands in the name of H.U F- Extenl Market value Rs - Address-Boundaries-Remarks l Smt Ch-Rama Devi, W/o.Ch. AYodhYa - 870 -5O.9O,OoO/- H No.3-g-Reddy Colony Hanamakonda East. House of Sri. Sambaiah. West H No.3-9-6 55/A- North. 1OO feet Road South 2O feet Road. Joint family Property (HUF) All original documents are \,vith the defendants. 2. Smt.Ch.Rama Devi, W/o.Ch. AYodhYa Ramaiah, - 130- 6,31,O00/-H No 3-9-ReddY Colony Hana makonda East.H. No 3-9-655 of D 1 Wesl. H.No. 3-9-654 of others N odh. 'l0O feet Road South 20 feet Road - do- 3 Smt.Ch.Rama Devi w/o Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah,- 1650- 66 ,O0,OOO/- H.No.3-9 Reddy Colony Hanamakonda East.H. No. 3-9-655 of Dl West House of Srinivas North. '10 o feet Road South.Others Wo.Ch. AyodhYa Ramaiah,- 150- 6,00,000/- H.No.3-9-Reddy ColonY Hanam akonda Easl.oPen land of Smt Ch Rama Devi(D1) Wes t H. No 3-9-526 of others North. 20 feet Road, South. Others house' do- 5. Rama Devi, W/o Ch. AYodhY a Ramaiah,-'1700 -1, 1 9,00,000/- H.No.3-9- Reddy ColonY Hanamakonda East.House of Ramdas' West H No 3-9-527 of others , North 100 feet Road, South. Others house,-do- 6. Smt.Ch.Rama Devi, Wo.Ch AYodhYa Ramaiah.- 1 50-10, 50,0001H.No'3-9- Reddy ColgnY Hanamakonda East.House of Ramdas, West H' No 3-9- 527of D1 Nor1h. 1OO feet Road South Others house,-do- -do 4. Rama Devi, house, SCHEDULE.l (B) HOUSING PROPERTIES/PLOTS AT HYDERABAD Sl. No. - Property stands in the name of H'U F- Extent Sq'yds- Market value Rs'-Address-Boundaries- Remarks 1. Smt.ch.Rama Deri, w;.i;; dricn nvoohvr' namaiah sv. No.'157 and.l62- 1 ,37,80'000/- Nacharam comptex ptot r,ro.zz ir.ir'o_"aJ-dz lzzii"r.'aeaiy nagar Nachaiam Hyderabad- East.Nacharam S;rth go f"Lt ,oio-.loint familv propertv (HUF)'All original Main Road, West. H. No. +4 et[.; oi "fi;;;, documeats are with the o"r"no'nt"]'z]''i-"'t Cnnit' DevL W/o Late Sri'C-h' Ayodhya Ramaiah'-'1250 so.Fts-16.so,ooolH.No. No.4- t-zloiri iirt'i No'105VRNs Saikiran Residencv' Karthikevanagar' of others West'others house North' 40 leet road South 40 Nacharam Hvderabad,East Shoppi''lq "o'pt"' feer road. -do- 3. Smt.ch.Rarr ;:;,.ir;;:i;; s'" ir,l. ev"oni" Ramaiah-188-20 7'l ooo/-H No'3-1-580/2 l""i'so'f*r'|.o"a.west' plot No 28 of others Norlh plot sBH colonv Karthikevanasar.LB ";;;;;;;;;;;'; ;t, ru" zt"s p"ti ti"tt'ers-ao +.smtcr-Rama Devi' wo Late sri'ch A)/odhva i:: 'r;;';il;;;il Ramaiah-84.44-'!8.5s,8+o/-u.l'1o.s- i-si5lt sau Colony Karthikeyanagar' tB naqar Hyderabad -East' 30 feet scHEDULE-1 (c) HouslNG road west.H.No. 3_1_580 Norttr.H lNl'. s,i-ssoiz Sourh.20 ieet pRopERTy AT ANNARAM wl Xeia"r,'ru-onau (rl,rer.rot) MAHABUBABAD DISTRICT. Sl.No.-Propertv stands in the name ol H.U'F- smt.ch.Rama Devi, wo.Late Sri Er, iv.invr'R;;aiah 5 89,52Ol- H.No.',l- 8o'sv.No.',l57-East House of 6ri.piiLr"riri r.rrisaiah Norlh. House of sri.Prllamarri ramu 9outh. House sri.chirra Braham west House are with the defendants. of Smt.chepuru Radnita nncestrfi pi"i"nv i'uri All .original -documents -Rs.. 1. Jewellery (Gold) Gold 200 tulas @ schedute_3A, Movabte (propertre"i si ii"..''prop"rtv -Value Rs.5o,oo0/- per tulas- 1,oo,oo,ooo,l''l'sotf i i6"- 5'so'oool-: Vehicle Ford Eco sport Regn No TS-03- RTRO772- 13,00,000/- 4. c""n on r'iio:r"'66'oo o6ol-!. rt'rur*r funds and shares with pan No AEUPC1506R Ref.No.1296.1 party code.1.l52oe lirj,oO,iiril--i"rvi S1""k Broking Ltd. PVKR Residency, Opp.Water Tank. Hanamkonda 6. Amount tr.n"t"r.'"iio-iot'iinrt -t.oo'oo'oool- z. Deposits and recurring in Various banks at HVJ"r"O"A, Hanamakonda' Jagitial town - 1 '00 00'000/- $ vo'rt'r91"1^ 11tY Rs'-Address-Boundaries-Remarks 'E; .t,en-I -road. "r 1 I I I l ! I I I SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES S.HEDULE_r(A) 6 HousrNG ooonuo*ilffi. r* Address Boundaries HANAMKONDA Remark s sl. l\o I Exte Sq.vd s 870' Market Rs. 50,90,00 0/- Property stands in the name of H.U.F Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, Wo.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah H.No.3-9- 655 Rcddy Colony Hanamako Joint family propqft y(HUF) .AII original docume nts are defenda rlts. -do- llast:House Sri.Sambaiah West: H.No.3-9- 655/A Ngrth: 100 feet F-oad South: 20 feet Road East: H.No.3- 9-655 ofDI West: H.No.3-9-654 of o thers North: 100 feet Road South: 20 feet Roa d 2 Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, Wo.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah 130 6,3 1,000 H.No.3-9- 655/A Reddy Colony Hanamako 1 I L l I\ .t\l \\. J 4 5 6 7 165 0 66,00,00 0l- 150 6,00,000 Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, Wo.Ch. AyodhYa Ramaiah Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, Wo.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah 1700 1,19,00, 000/- 150 I0,50,00 0/- Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, Wo.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah Smt.Ch.Ra ma Devi, W/o.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah H.No.3-9- 521 Reddy ColonY Hanamako H.No.3-9- 527 Reddy Colony Hanamako H.No.3-9- 6s9 Reddy Colony Hanamako H.No.3-9- 660 Reddy Colony Hanamako -do- -do- -do- -do- East: H.No.3- 9-659 of D1 West: Flouse ol Srinivas North: 100 feet Road South: Others East: open Smt.Ch.Rama devi ( D1) West: H.No.3-9-526 others North: 20 feet Road South: Others E-AS!: House of Rarndas West: H.No.3-9-527 others North: 100 leet Road South: Others East: Flouse of Ramdas West: H.No.3-9-527 of D I North: 100 feet Road South: Others SCHEDULE-1(B) HOUSTN G PROPERTIE YPIOTS AT I{YDERABAD SI N o Property stands in the name of H.U.F Exten t Sq.vd S Market Rs. 1 : r,.-::!,f :.- :!i'.'i Address Boundaries Remar Smt.Ch.Ran a Devi W/o.Late Sri.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah 1 Sy. No. 157 &162 1,37,80,00 Nachararn 0 Complex Plot No.22 H.,rNo.4-4- Veera Reddy nagar Nacharam Hyderabad . East:Nach aram Main Road West:H.N o.4-4- 81/2A of o thers Nsrlh' H.No.4-4- others South: 30 feet road Joint family propert Y(HUF ).Au origina I docurn defend ants r 1250 Sq.Fr s 2 Smt.Ch.Ram a Devi, W/o.Late Sri.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah 16,s0,000/ H No. No.4- t-216/111 Flkat No.105,VR Ns Saikiran Residency, Karthikeyan agat, Nacharam Hyderabad -do- East:Shop compiex of others West:other s house North: 40 feet road South: 40 feet road ) Smt.Ch.Ram 188 a Devi, W/o.Late Sri.Ch. Ayodhya Ramaiah 20,7 t ,000/ H.No.3-l- 580/2 sBIJ Colony Karthikeyan agar, LB nagar Hyderabad -do- 30 East feet road West: plot No.28 of others North: plot No.l7 of others South: piot No.29 S part of others 4 mt.Ch.Ram 84.44 S a Devi, Wo.Late Sri.Ch. Ayodhya Rarnaiah 18,59,840/ H.No. 3-t - 580,'I SBH Colony Karthikeyan agar, LB nagar H derabad East:30 -do- feet road 'West: H.No. 3-l- 580 North: H.No. 3-t- s80/2 9 I I South:20 feet road SCHEDULE-I (C) HOUSING PROPERTY AT ANNARAM ryi reiartauoRAM (MANDAL) MAHABUBABAD DISTRICT Address Boundaries Remark S Market Rs. F,X t Sc1 .yd S sl. No I Property stands in the name of H.U.F Smt.Ch.Ram a Devi, Wo.Late Sri.Ch. AyodhYa Ramaiah 5,89,5201- H.No.i- 80, Sy.No.1 57 East:House of Sri.Chirra Braham Wcst: I{ouse ofSri. P ilIamarri Narsaiah North: I{ouse ofSri-P ilIamarri South: House of Smt.ChePuru Radhika Ancestr a1 propert y(HUF) All original docume nts are defenda Schedule-3A, Movable (ProPerttes ) sl. No Property V alue Rs. 1 Jewellery (Gold) 1,00,00,000/- 2 3 4 5 Gold 200 tulas @ Rs.50,000/- Per Solver 5 kgs Vehicle Ford Eco SPort Regn No.TS-03-RTR0772 Cash on hand Mutual funds & shares with pan No.AEUPC1506R Ref.No.12961 P code:1 15209 3,50,000/- 13,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- 50,00,000/ 10 Karvi S tock Broking Ltd, PVKR Residency, Opp:Water Tank, Hanamkonda 6 Am ount transferred to Rohit A,/c. t! and recurring in Various Deposi lanks a! Hyderabad,Hanamakonda, Jagitial town _- .'t-:ra! -..-. ._...r,_:. r:a.i;iir ':i-'r: 'r, NO: 2 OF 2025 ,.' - - petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to as additional documents in the captioned cMA on behalf of the petitioners for proper adjudication of the Petition. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI G SATYANARAYANAYADAV The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ') THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL Nos. l8 and 20 of 2025 COMMON JUDG MENT: (per Hotl'ble SmL Justice p.Sree Sudhat C.M.A.No. 18 of 2O2S is hled against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No. 142 of 2023 in O.S.No.4t2 of 2Ci22 (O.S.No.33 of 2O2l (old)) passed by the learned principai District J udge, ar Hanumakonda.

2. C.M.A.No.20 o{ 2025 is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No.289 of 2O2I in O.S.No.4I2 of 2022 (O.S.No.33 of 2O2t (old)) passecl by the learned principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda

3. Appella4ts herein have hled an application uid_e I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.4l2 ot 2022, against the respondents for appointment of receiver to manage and collect rents from the tenan ts'/ kou ldars of the plaint schedule_1(A, B and C), 2 (A, B and C)(immovable properties) and also to control thc schedulc-3 (movable properties). The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sidcs and on perusal of [he \ 1 2 materialonrecorddismissedtheapplication.Aggrievedbythe said Order, appeliants have preferred C'M A No 18 of 2025

4. Appellants herein have also fi1ed an application uide I.A.No.289 ot 2O2l in O S No'412 of 2022' against the respondenls, for grant of ad-injunctiorr restraining thc respondents not to alienate the suit schedule properLics to third parties. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides' partly allowed the application' Aggrieved bv the said Order' appcllants have preferred C M A No'20 of 2025' 5-LearnedCounselfortheappellantsstatedl-hatappellants herein are the natural daughters of respondent No l and respondent No-2 is their eider sister' Respondent: No 1 and late Ayodhya Ramaiah had four daughters and oner son by name Harikiran.WhileHarikiranwaspursuingEngirreeringDegree, died in a road accident occurred on 07 'o7 '1999 and Ayodhya Ramaiah had also died intestate on 19'03 2O2O Thereafter' appellants and respondents No l and' 2 constituted a ioint family of Ayodhya Ramaiah, as such appellan[s herein have hled asuituideo.S.No.412of2022'forpartitiolrandseparatc possession of their legitimate share Appellants after the death of their father, requested their mother and elder sisLer' who are / / J respondents No.1 and 2, for partition of the joint lamily properties, since the respondents No.1 and 2 are not disclosing the income/rents being collected on the suit schedule properties. Respondent No.2 has taken Lhe respondent No. 1 completely under her control and trying to grab the joint family properties. As there is no positive response from respondent No.2, appellants issued legal notice on lO.12.2O2O and respondents No.1 and 2 gave reply notice on 24.12.2020, by disputing certain properties and by admitting certain properties.

6. It is also stated that Late Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1 have adopted the son of respondent No.2, who is respondent No.3 herein, as their son on 22.12.),ggg and they have executed and registered the adoption deed on 09.Og.2OO1, hence he is also entitled for equal share and requested the appellants to wai[ till the first death anniversary of their father. ln the meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 2 have hled a Caveat Petition against the appellants herein on 07.Ot.202L. Appellants have issued reply notice on 12.O2.2O21, denying the adoption of respondent No.3 by Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1, and demanded for alleged copy of the adoption deed, but it was not furnrshed to them. When respondents No.2 and 3 were trying to alienatc the propcrties, appellants have llled the suit I I \ 4 uide O.S.No.33 of 2O2I on 2O.O4.2O21, for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares I I l

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants further stated that there are only five coparceners i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 and respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 was already getting monthly pension of around Rs.70,00O/- and therefore, she was not dependent on anybody. Responclent No. 1 never shared any information as to the expenditure incurred or the incomes derivcd from the properties as renls, lease amounts, etc., and also Lhe amounts received on account of Gratuity, PF, lnsurance, etc., of Late Ayodhya Ramaiah. Appellants after their marriage joined with their husbands and living away from thc parents, but alter the demise of Ayodhya RamaizLh, respondcnt No.2 joined r,r,i th the respondent No. 1 and living in the house of respondent No.l for a long time, as such appellants filed an application uide I.A.No.l42 of 2023 (O1d I.A.No.3O1 of 2O2l\ for appointment of rccciver to prevent misuse/ misntanagcmcnt of the funds and they gave the details of the propertres stalding rn the name of their parents. He also stated that or-r enquiry with the tenants, appellants came to know that Rs.52,92,000/ - per annum was collecting from them as rents from hc,use properties in Hanamkonda and Hyderabad and Rs.5,47,50C)/- per annum :7 ) was collecting from the Agricultural lands by the respondents and tenants have also deposited an amount of Rs.23,54,OOO/ r.r,i th the respondents No.1 and 2 initially. Respondents No.2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that properLy at Sl.No.2 of the plain schedule Plot No.436C is a joint property of Late Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1, but respondent No.l through a registered sale deed ujde document No. 15321 of 2022, transferred the said property in favour of respondent No.3, during the pendency of the suit and also admitted that they are not receiving any rents or deposits from the tenants and at the same time opposed the appointment of receiver [o collect lhe rents.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly con[ended that the relicf of appointing receiver is a purely discretionary relief. The trial Court erroneously observed that some of the properties werc in the name of the brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah as they were not partitioned between them and as respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not earning members, certain properties were translerred by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No.3, which clemons[rated the fraudulent conduct of respondents and Iikely to cause imminent danger to the properties. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. / I 6 g. Parties hereinafter are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the triai Court in O S.No 412 of i

10. Initially, O.S. No.412 of 2022 was hled by plaintiffs, u'ho are the daughters of dcfendanl No.1 against the clefendanl No 1 and another sisler i.e., defendant No.2 and her son. They have also added the brother of their father as party to the suit as per I.A.No.36 of 2024. The brie f averments of the plaint arc that Ayodhya Ramaiah died intestate on 19.O3.2O20 and he has four daughters and one son namely Harikiran, who met with road accident and died on 07 .O7 .1999. The late Ayodhya Ramaiah owned and possessed agricultural lands, housing properties and also other movable propertics including liquid cash, jeu'elle ry, house hold articles, vehicles, etc. Plaintiff No.1 took care of her mother after the death of their father, as such she ltled suit for partition of 1 / Stn share to each of them. Defenclant No 2 after the death of their brother Harikiran, influenced their parents' It is also stated that plaintiff No.2 marned one of her relatives' family member, but it was not accepted by their parents at thc behest oi the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 tried to alienate part of the suit schedule properties situated at Paidipally (V), Raghavendra Nagar, to third parties When 7 plaintiffs questioned the same, defendant No.2 denied the same. Thereafter, when plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit properties, defendant No.2 postponed the same on one or other pre lext. L I . The said Ayodhya Ramaiah worked as Regional Deputy Director (R.D.D), and died due to Cancer on 19.03.2020. While he r,vas suffering from Cancer, plaintiffs particularly plaintiff No- I rendered their services. The defendant No.1 is a senior crtizen and an ordinary house hold women. She is not in a oosition to take decisions independently and she was rn the clutches ol delendant No.2 and her son defendant No.3. Dcf'endant No.2 is making illegal attempts to sell away Lhe estate of Ayodhya I?amaiah and also to knock away the movable and immovable properties without the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs and their mother and defendants No.2 and 3 are sr-rpported by the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. All the properties arc ancestral properties/self acquired properties, purchased by Ayodhya Ramaiah. Though some of the properties rvere purchased by their father, they were registered in the name of Hindu Undivided Family members/Coparcene r including of Purohits/Vasthu defendants, as per the advice Pandits. They are only the name lenders, but they have no \ \ 1 8 exclusive right over the joint family properties. However, all the daughters are the members of Hindu Joint Family and legal heirs ol Ayodhya Ramaiah. The defendant No.2. her husband and their son are collectir-rg rents from the sl-rops/ shopping complexes, houses and also from agricultural lands, but failed to disclose the annua[ income to the legttimate share holders and now they are trying to transfer the same in the name of delendant No.3 or to lhe third parties- Defcndant Nr;.2 has also renamed the name of hcr son as 'Rohit Harikiran' and thus requested for 1/Sttt share in cach of the properties.

12. In the written sta[e ment Iiled by the d<:fendants they denied al1 the material allegations and stated thal the properties listed in lA-Schedules 1 to 6 are not the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah, the property shown at Sl.No 7 is thc exclusive property of Ayodhya Ramaiah, the properties shown at Sl.Nos.l and 3 of the plaint are thc exclusive properties of defendant No. 1, while the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 4 are the exclusive properties'of defendant No.2 and the properties shown at Sl.Nos.S and 6 of the plaint in 1A Schedule properties belongs to one Dhanunjaya, the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property at SI.No. 1, plaint 1 B schedule is the exclusive property of defendant No,1. Thc properties shown at 9 Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of I B plaint schedule are the joint properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and defendant No. 1. The property shown at S1.No. I of 1-C plaint schedule property is the ancestral property and it is not partitioned between Ayodhya Ramaiah and his younger brothcr Dhanunjaya. The agricultural lands shown in plaint 24. Schedule are the self acquired properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property shown at Sl.No.4 of the plaint scheduie 1B is the exclusive properly of clefendant No.2 and the property shown at SI.No.S ol the plaint 18 schedule belongs to the husband of delendant No.2. Similarly, the propert5z shown at SI.No.6 of the plaint 1B schedule belongs to defendant No.3.

13. The properties shown in plaint 1A schedule from SI.Nos.1 to 6 are not the properties o[ Ayodhya Ramaiah and they do not belong to the ancestral joint family properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and are not liable for partition being the exclusive properties of defendants No.1 to 3 and the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property shown at Sl.No.1 and 3 of the plaint 1A schedule is'the property acquired by the defendant No. I with her own 'Stridhana', the property shown at Sl.No.2 and 4 o[ the 1A plaint schedule belongs to defendant No.2 and the property shown at Sl.Nos.S and 6 belongs to Dhanunjay, who is the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. t I r0 t

14. Defendants further stated that Al.odhya Ramaiah was the owner of the property shou,n at SI.No.7 of plairt 1A scl-redule and owner of the properties shou,n :rt pl:iint lC schedule and plaint 2A schedules respectively and not any olher properties shown in plaint 1A, 18, except the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2, 3 and 3,{ schedules and was the joint owner along with defendant No.1 in respect of the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. Thc defendant No.1 was getting rents from schedule 1(A, B, C) and 2 (A, B, C) properties situated at Hanamkonda, Flydcr:rbad and lhe properties situated at Annaram Village of Mahaboobabad Revenue Mandal. The defendant No.l and her husband adopted the defendant No.3, after the death of their son Harikiran and renamed Rohit as Rohit Harikiran, as such he is also entitled lor 1/6ti' share in the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The gold and silver articles are not the joint family properties and thc car shown at Sl.No.2 of plaint 3A schedule stands in Lhe name of defendant No.3. The unspecified gold and silver jewellcry are noL in the custody of defendants No. 1 to 3 and the defendant No. 1 got the same from her parents as 'Stridhana'. \

15. Defendant No. t has also hled the Counter Claim and it is adopted by defendants No.2 and 3 in toto and rejoinder is filed by the plaintiffs. Delendants also stated that the Chepuru Dhanujaya, who is the -voungcr brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah and Madan Mohan, r,r,ho is the husband of defendant No.2 are the necessary parties to the suit.

16. Now it is for this CourL [o see whether the receiver is to be appointed for preservation and for protection of properties and lor collection of rents?

17. Plaintiffs and defcndant No.2 are daughters of defendant No.1 and their father diecl in the year 2O2O and their brother also died in the road accident in the year 2O19, as such plaintiffs Illed suit for partition of the properties and they also added the younger bro[her of their father as defendant No.4, during the pendency of the proceedings. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.l, who is the mother, is under the influence of defendanls No.2 and 3 and both of them are supported by delendant No.4, as such she could not take the decision independently. She is not accounted for the pensionary benefits after the dcath of their father and defendants are not showing accounts for the rents received from the houses and I I 2 agricultural lands and thus the propertics are to be protected from the influence of defendants No.2 to 4. Therr:fore, plaintiffs sought for appointment ol receiver.

18. Admittedly, properties are perlaining to the same family. Defendant No.1 stated that afLer the death of her husband, she was managing the properties with the assistancc of defendant No.4, who was younger brother of their husband. She has also filed the counter claim against the plaintiifs- She furthcr stated that she was residing independently and not rvith defcnciant No.2 and she was not influenced by them. Therefore, until and unless it was established by the plaintitts tliat there was wastage of pilferage of the properties, recciver cannot bc appointed. The trial Court referred so man-r' .Iudgments, in which it was clearly laid down thal receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and thc appointment of receiver cannot be resortr:d lightly without considering the entire facts and circumsLances of the case. IL was further stated that no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show that anything jeopardizing their intercst was happened, showing mismanagement and concealment and wastage of income. After considering the docurnents filcd by both sides and also the legal principles, the Lrial Court rightly dismissed the application. As there is no illegality or infirmity in the Order o[ the trial Court, this Cour[ finds no reason to interfere with the said Order and accordingly C.M.A.No.1g of 2O25 is liable to be dismissed.

19. Regarding C.M.A.No.20 of 2025, the trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, observed that plaintiffs are entitled for injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from alienating the properties in rcspect of petition schedule 24, 28 and 2C properries and Sl.No.7 of Schedule 1A and SI.Nos.2 and 3 of Schedule 18 properties. Admittedly, the suit hled for partition is pending between the parties and the details of the properties were furnished by the plaintiffs in a tabular form and contended that sorne of the properties were disposed of by defendant No.2 and her husband during the pendency of the suit and also prior to filing of the suit, as such they sought for relief of injunction. The trial Court mentioncd in detail regarding the properties in whose namc they are and observed that whether the properties pertains to the Hindu Undivided Family of Ayodhya Ramaiah or not will be decided in a detailed trial and considering the admission of the defendants, injunction Order was granted only against some of the properties. As the suit is still pending and the injunction application was hled \ I t t I I l4 during the pendency of the proceedings, thr: trial Court considering all the aspects rightly allowed the applicaLion in part and this Court hnds no illegality or infirmiry in the said Order and accordingly C.M.A.No.2O of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appcals are dismissed by conhrming the Orders of the t rial Court in I.A.No.142 of 2023 and I.A.No.289 of 2O2l in O.S.No 412 of 2022, both dated 12. 1 | .2024 . There shall be no ordcr as [o costs. closed To, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand /ITRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR SEC ON OFFICER

1. The Principal District Judge, at Hanamakonda. 2. One CC to SRl. A RAJENDRA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. G SATYANARAYANA YADAV Advocate [OPUCI I

4. Two CD Copies TPK/gh {g HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 COMMON JUDGMENT. GMA.Nos.18 and 2O of 2025 ..i- .1HE :i f/i \. 2 E AUE 2025 .i ..'/ .^,,/ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS ARE DISMISSED &8