The High Court · 2025

civil Miscellaneous Appear Under order 43 Rure 1 of c.p.c., aggrieved by the order and decreetal order dated o4to4l2o23, passed in lA No. 3s of 2022 in os No 9 ot 2022, on the fire of the principar District and Sessions Judge, at Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District. etween: '1. Beeram Deepthi Chandrika, Wo P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, D/o Beeram Shiva Reddy, Age 32 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 12-26, I Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkumool Town, Presently residing al 14-7 2641N3, HB Colony.

2. Beeram Shiva Reddy, S/o B. Sai Reddy, Age 58 years, Occ. Ophtalmic Assistant, Govt. Hospital, Nagarkurnool, R/o H.No. 12-26, Ramangar Colony, Nagarkurnool Town. ...Petitioners/Respondent Nos. I &2 AND '1. P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, S/o P. Veera Reddy, Age. 35 years Occ- Private Employee, N/o H.No. 11-'176, Ramnagar Colony, Nagark pool, R/o Bangalore, Currently residing at Nagarkunool. ...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. B. Dhileep Kumar Reddy, S/o B. Shiva Reddy, R/o H.N61 10-50 (Plot No. 114), 3 Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroomagar District.

3. M. Suresh, R/o H.No. 10-50 (Plot No. '1 14), Ground Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroomagar District.

4. K.Srinu,Rl/oH.No. 10-50(PlotNo. 1141) lFloor,Gayatri Nagar,Jillelaguda, Saroomagar District.

5. D. Naresh, R/o H.No. 1O-50 (pbt No. 114), 2nd Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

6. L. Sai Kishore, R/o H.No1 10-50 (Plot No. '1 '14), 2nd Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

7. Shankar, R/o Ground Floor, West side portion, H.No. 14-2MlA/3, Sree ' Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. 8. Vishwanathan, R/o First Floor, East Side Portion, H.No. 14-26414"/3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. 9. Srinivas, R/o First Floor, West side portion, H.No. 14-26414/3, Sree Venkateshwara'Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

10.Subash, R/o Second Floor, East side Portion, H.No. 14-264lA,/3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

11. Ramulu, Rl/o Second Floor, Middle Portion, H.No. 14-264ltu3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

12. Sreenivas, Rl/o Second Floor, East Side Portion, H.No. 14-26414,/3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

13. Sridhar Goud, R/o Third Floor (Pent house). R/o H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. (Respondent No- 2 to '13 not necessary ) ...Respondent Nos. 2 to 13/Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the common order dated 04-04-2023 in lA NO. 36 cf 2022 in OS. No. 9 of 2022 on file of the Principal Districtand Sessions Jg(,3e, at Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District pending disposal of the above CMA. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri A. Venkatesh representing Sri. T Sanjay Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri H. Venugopal representing Sri S. Amarendar Reddy CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 287 OF 2023 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) R/w 104 of C.p.C., aggrieved by the Order and decreetal order dated 041041202.3 passed in lA NO. I ot 2023 in OS. No. 1 ol 2023, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District. Between: peeram Deepthi Chandrika, Wo P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, D/o Beeram Shiva Reddy, Age.3_2 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. l2-2t6, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnool Town, Presently rqsiding al l4-2641N3, HB Colony. ..AppellanUPetitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, S/o P. Veera Reddy, Age. 35 years Occ. private lmployee, R/o. N/o H.No. 11-176, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnoot town and District.

2. P.Veera Reddy, S/o. Venkat Ram Reddy, aged 70 years. Occ. Business, R/o N/o H.No. 11-176, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnool town and District ...Respondents/Respondents Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the order dated 41412023 in lA No. 9 ot 2023 in OS No. 1 of 2023 on the file of the court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, liagarkurnool, pending disposal of CMA. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri A. Venkatesh representing Sri. T Sanjay Reddy counsel for the Respondent No. , , t{,i,r;.rily.llill"{Ji;;r,,"n CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1478 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lnCia, aggrieved by the order dated 04 04.2023 passed in l.A. No. 37 ol 2022 in O.Si No. 9 ot 2O22 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Nagarkurnool, Nagarkurnool District. Between:

1. Beeram Deepthi Chandrika, Wo P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, D/o Beeram Shiva Reddy, Age 32 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o H.No. 12-26, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnool Town, Presently residing al 14-2641N3, HB Colony.

2. Beeram Shiva Reddy, S/o B. Sai Reddy, Age 58 years, Occ. Ophtalmic Assistant, Govt. Hospital, Nagarkurnool, R/o H.No. 12-26, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnool Town. ...Petitioners/Respondents AND

1. P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, S/o P. Veera Reddy, Age. 35 years Occ. Private Employee, N/o H.No. 11-176, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkurnool, R/o Bangalore, Currently residing at Nagarkurnool. ...RespondenUPlaintiff 2, B. Dhileep Kumar Reddy, S/o B. Shiva Reddy, Rio H.No. 10-50 (Plot No. '114), 3rd Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

3. M. Suresh, R/o H.No. 10-5Ci (Plot No. 114), Ground Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

4. K. Srinu, R/o H.No. tb-so lent No. 114), 1St Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

5. D. Naresh, R/o H.No. 10-50 (Plot No. I14), 2 Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

6. L. Sai Kishore, , R/o H.No. 10-50 (Plot No. 1'14), 2nd Floor, Gayatri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar District.

7. Shankar, Rl/o Ground Floor, West side portion, H.No. 14-2MlN3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. B. Vishwanathan, R/o First Floor, East Side Portion, H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

9. Srinivas, Rl/o First Floor, West side portion, H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. '10. Subash, R/o Second Floor, East side Portion, H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool 1 1. Ramulu, Rl/o Second Floor, Middle Portion, H,No. 14-2641N3, Srce Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkumool.

12. Sreenivas, R/o Second Floor, East Side Portion, H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkumool.

13. Sridhar Goud, R/o Third Floor (Pent house). R/o H.No. 14-2641N3, Sree Venkateshwara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. (Respondent No. 2 to '13 are not Necessary) ...Respondents/Respondents IA NO: 10F 2023 petition under section 151 cpc praying. that..in the circurrstances stated in ;"[6; ih. Hish court m:rv be preased to the affidavit fired in suppJ; ;i; suspend the common oro".'i'"tti'bliiildns in lA.N'o 37 ol 2022 in os No 9 of ;;; sessions Judse' at Nasarkurnool' 2022 on file or the P'i";;:l';;i';i -NO"g"iLrrnool District pending disposal of the above' Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A' Venkatesh represenling counsel for the Respondent No' '' tr'3:lltXrX'"f#"J;d" Sri. T SanjaY ReddY t" CIVIL RE vlsloN PETITIO N NO: 16450 F 2023 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constituti-on of lndia' aggrieved by the order dated o4.o4.2o23 rrr".tTin iA"N; 35 ;-022 in o s Nr' 9 of 2022 on the file of the Court of th" Pfiil"i iii"t..,"--t JnJs"ttiont Judge' at Nagarkurnool' Nagarkurnool District' Between: P. Shiva Shankar Reddy, Sio P.Veera- Reddy,. age.34 years, occ- Software L.s";;; il;; H N" r r i7'o'"namnasir cotonv' Nasarkurnoor .,.Petitioner/Plaintiff AND a 2 u ur [%1 " i r?33, ;..f, :,?1"?:"H)" 1 smt.BeeramDeepthign'."1y'r.y,'":"."t"!''3ri::i!1.fi llfllf l3?ffi '# Shiva ReddY, aged about 3pi'i3" ri]ii,'i'u ilt I z:io. n''i nlliitoronv' N'aga rku rnc'o I rown Sri Beeram Shiva Reddy, S/o B Sai Reddy 6"nfrr-rrii Asiistant, Govt Hospital' Nag n5.nig"t Colony, Nagarkurnool Town' Sri B.Dhileep Kumar Reddy, S/o B'Shiva.Reddy-'-R/o H No No. 1 1 4), 3rd Floor, crvrtn,i il'd'i L-irierag Jaa' Saioorn:rsar' R' sri M.Suresh, R/o H.No 10-50 (Plot No 114)' Ground Floor' Gayathri Nagar' Jiitetaguda, Saroornagar, R R dist' ,lSt Floor' Gayathri Nagar' sri K,Srinu' R/o H,No' 10-50 (Plot No.114), .tiiieraguOa, Saroornagar, R R dist' SriD.Naresh,R/oH.No.-,10-50(PlotNo.114),2ndFoor,GayathriNagar, Jiii"ragror, Saroornagar, R R dist Sril.SaiKishore,R/oH.No10-50(PlotNo.1,l4),2ndt:loor,GayathriNagar' JiietaguOa, Saroornagar, R R dist' '10-50 (Plot R. dist 4 7 6 5 I 3it"',1"il:t.-"#l,x,i:""::'-H:i,ln"Jl?,8*i*r,x:nl,.il'?"#t264tN3'

9. Sri Viswanathan, First Floor, East side portion, R:/o H-No- 14- 264 lN 3, SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

10. Sri Srinivas, First Floor, West side portion, R/o H.No. 14-2641N3' SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. 1 1. Sri Subash, R/o H.No. 14-2641N3, SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. '12.Sri Ramulu, Second Floor, Middle portion, R/o H.No. 14-2641N3' SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool

13. Sri Sreenivas, Second Floor, East side portion, R/o H.No. 14- 264 I N 3, SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool.

14. Sri Sridhar Goud, R/o H No. 14-2UlN3, SreeVenkateswara Nilayam, Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool. ...Respondents/Respondents (Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 are not necessary) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the orders of Principal District Judge Nagarkurnool daled 04.O4.2O23 in lA No. 3712022 in OS No. 912022 in respect of schedule B Property by consequently allow the application vide lA No. 3712022 in OS No. 9 12022 by directing the tenants of schedule B Property to deposit rents in the trial court suit account till disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri H. Venugopal, Senior Counsel representing Sri S. Amarendar Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 & 2: Sri A. Venkatesh, Senior Counsel representing Sri. T Sanjay ReddY The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.225 226&287 oi2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1478 & 1645 of 2023 AND COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramii) 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 ot 2023 and C,R P.No l47B 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, learn,-,d counse! 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 ot 2023 aad respondent in C.R.P.No.1478 of 2023

2. As the suit schedule properties, issues and ther 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,.l and 2 (wife and her father) and respondent No.1/plaintiff (husband) lir-L- ) Cmas 225,226&287 and crps 1478&164j 2021 PSK.t & \t in C.M.A.Nos.225 and 226 of 2023 are hereinafter be referred as t defendant Nos.'l and 2 and plaintiff respectively as per the array in O.S No.9 o'f 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 No14-2641N3, in Plot No.'l 1, admeasuring 250.55 square yards with construction of three floors plus pent house having eight portions, situated in Survey No.352lA, 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 ) I,SK.J & NTR ] ( m.Is 12i,226&28? anc crrr I{ iti&16-1i ,0)' defendant No.1-wife as vendees and the suit schedule 'B' property was purchased in the name of defendant No.'llwife as vendee, albeit the sale consideration was paid from his savings and by availing home loan and the defendant No.1-wife beinS; 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. l-wife and he is the deTure owner of the suit'A'and 'B' schedule properties. As such, he is entifled for declaration and rents and the defendant No.1-wife and her father/defendant No.2 shall not interfere with hiS possession. Therefore, filed LA.No.35 of 2022 for grant of temporary inlunction restraining rhe defendant No.1-wife, from alienating suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties; l.A.No.36 o'f 2022 restraining the wife/defendant lrlo.1 and her father/defendant No.2 from interfering into his possession of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and l.A.No.37 of 2022 to direct the tenants/defendant Nos.3 to 14 for depositing the rerts of the suit 'A' and 'B' properties, pending the suit.

6. On the other hand, the defendant No..l-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 C.mas 225,226&2E1 and crps_t.178&16.15 201 PS I(J & 2022) vide registered sale deed and is in peaceful possession of .i 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 l.A.No.g o't 2023 sought for temporary injunction against the plaintiff-husband and his father over the suit schedule prope(y

7. ln the impugned common order dated 04.04.2023 passed in l.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.'l-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 tenantsidefendant Nos.3 to 7 of the suit 'A' schedule property to pay monthly rents to the husband/plaintiff from April, 2023. -) PS},]&NIR I (nrtri llj.l16&287 rn l.rps 1.118&16.15_10:i However, the defendant No.'1-wife is permitted to collect the rents from the suit schedule 'B' property excluding the resrdential portion occupied by the plaintiff/husband in the ground floc,r to meet her and her daughter's monthly maintenance. ln consequence, dismissed the prayer of the defendant No.1-wife to grant temporary injunction in the LA.No. I of 2023.

8.a. Aggrieved by the order of restraint to alienate the schedule properties in l.A.Nos. 35 and 37 of 2022 in O.S.No 9 of 2O2Z the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (wife and her father) anct dismissal of petition to grant tempdrary injunction against the husband to interfere with the suit 'B' schedule property in l.A.N,: 9 oI 2OZ2 in O.S. No.'l 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 EMts in LA No.37 of 2022 the defendant Nos.'1 and 2 (wife and her father) fited C.Fl.p No.147g of 2023 and aggrieved by the order in favour of the defendant No..l- wife to collect rents of the suit ,B'schedule propert,/, the plaintiff_ husband preferred C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023. 6 Cm:d:t 225226&2ti ar'd, ps 1478&lg5 20 PSK.J &

9. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the defendant No.'l- .l 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. HeJg prayed for interference. 7 P\KJ&\IR I ( nras lli l:('.(18, r,.i rn)\ llr-13&t6-1i l0ll 10, ln response, the learned Senior Counsel fcr the plaintiff_ husband has besought in support of the impugned order, except the direction in favour of the defendant No.1-wife lo collect rents. He submits that the prayer in the application was fo a direction to the tenants for depositing the rents in the Court pending the suit. However, the Court traversing the scope of the pe:htion, granted favourable direction to the wife to collect rents, which is unacceptable, and considering the pleadings, ther Court if not directed to deposit the rents, should have given a clirection 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 submission:; and perused the material on record.

12. ln the adverse pleadings, the aspect for deterrnination would be whether the temporary injunction and the direction to coilect the rents in the impugned common order is sustainable in the facts and law? 1 tJ ( ma5 22j.226&2E7 ard crps,l47E&1645 20ll PSK,J & N\

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 ot 2023 14 ln 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 lo pay a sum of Rs.'13,65,794l- 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 2lo 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. ln 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 l'sK.J&\1R.1 ( ma\ 15.126&18rrr.j.t)\ Il-Sd:lr).li lr)ll

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 drspute.

17. The plaintiff-husband is asserting that he paid entire sale consideration for the suit schedule properties. lr contrast, the defendant No.'1-wife is also claiming that the sale ccnsideration for the suit schedule properties was paid by her fatier. Whether inclusion of name of defendant No.'l-wife in the sale deed was nominal or gracious or benami and the veracity of lhe 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 holciers of the suit 'A' schedule property and the defendant No.1-wife s the owner of suit'B' schedule property. l0 L nra5 12j.226&287 and crps I47E&1645 202i PSK.J & N

19. By now, it is well settled that when the ownership over the ..1 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. ln so far as the suit 'A' schedule property, at this interlocutory stage basing on the sale deed, pima facie it shall be held that, the plaintiff-husband and the defendant No.1-wife are the co-owners. lt 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. ln 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 anterests of the l1 PS[..r & \ IR..r Cmas 225.226&28 an.l crpi lllS&lf)li lrrl.l 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 . ln 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. ln 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.'l-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 documenUdeed that would be executed by the defendant No.l-wife. ln these terms the impugned order relating to suit 'B' schedule property has to be modified. &..*- l t2 I'SK,J d N tR.. ( nras 125.126&lE7 ard crp: l47lt&1615 2021

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 presenfly not. per eontra, 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 at appropriate to direct the defendant No.1-wife not to interfere with the setfled possession of the portion in which the plaintiff_husband is in possession, pending suit is appropriate.

24. ln 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..l-wife is entitled for share in suit ,A, schedule property and perpetual t_i PS[\.J & \l R.l Cnras 225.226&281 nrd rrpr I478&lt'li l0ll 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 anrl having regard to the pleadings of the defendant No.1-wife and her title over the suit 'B' schedule properly, 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. ln 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 aflirmation.

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 I l 14 ( nrr\_?25.226&2E7 ajld crp\ l47lt& 16{) l0l rsK,l & N t.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 l.A.No.35 of 2022in O.S.No.9 of 2022 stands affirmed. 28 C.M.A.No.226 of 2023 filed by the ptaintiff-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.'l-wife against the order in l.A.No.9 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023. C.R.P.No 1478 of 2023 filed by the defendant No.'l-wife and C.R.P.No 1645 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff-husband challenging the order in l.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. //TRUE COPY// s A V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR / t SECTION OFFICER The Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Nagarkurnool' Nagarkurnool District. One CC to Sri. T Saniay Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri S. Amarendar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies To, 1

4. DL/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:24t03t2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.22S,226 & 2Bt ot 2023 AND C.R.P. Nos. 1478 & 1645 ot 2023 () I 0!l s'tP 2[6 .;'9 \. tt.l \ ::., a- - - --i1

9.1!.4. No. 225 of 2023 is parfly ailowed 9.!.1..tvo". 226 and zlt ;frd;3 6i-"=- C.R.p. Nos. 1478 and 1645 iiiizi ^r.dismissed. 6,rrq"L 9d,, \ur' .-----