The High Court · 2025

Judgment

(Per Hon'ble Smt. Just/ce Tirumala Devi Eada) This is an appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order, dated 0'l .04.2025, passed in l.A.No 203 of 2024 in O.S.No 26 of 2024 by the learned Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Court"). 2 T-he appellant herein is the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondentsaretherespondents/defendantsbeforethetrialCourt. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity' 3 The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that he is the son of Katta Seshagiri Rao and Smt.K.Damayanti (respondent No.'l ) and that Padma Priya and K.Pratima ie respondent Nos 2 and 3 are his sisters and that they are governed by Hindu Law He submitted that his father Katta Seshagiri Rao has purchased the petition schedule property out of his self earned income through his business Schedule-A property covers a house in plot bearing No.C6, admeasuring 716 Sq.yards at Vikrampuri Cooperative I i ,\(!,. & L tD,l Cl,,rA 2.14 2025 \. House Building Society Ltd Vikrampuri Color r Kakaguda, I Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad, having p. rchased from

Smt.Nirmala by their father Katta Seshagiri Rao in h s wife s name i.e. in the name of respondent No.'1lK.Damayanti Schedule-B property refers to open land admeasuring 63B.Bl; Sq.yards in survey No.55 srtuated at Trimulghery Village, jccunderabad Contonment Area, Hyderabad. Schedule-C prop:,rty refers to jewellery weighing 3037 500 grams which was :,o zed by the lncome Tax Department towards tax dues and that 1f e said dues were paid by Katta Seshagiri Rao while he was a ive and the release of the said gold is pending for submissio' tf legal heir certificate. Thus, his claim is that all the properties \ to C are the self acquired properties of his father/Katta Seshagtt flao and that he is entitled to a share in the property

4. Further, he submits that his grar C ather late K. Radhakrishnaiah who is the original patriarch of thr. ' famrly was a successful businessman and he had three ch lc ren 1)Katta Nagendar Rao, 2)Katta Seshagiri Rao and 3)M s R.Poornima. K.Nagendar Rao was blessed with two sons and or': Caughter ie. Katta Sreenivas Rao, Katta Janardhana Rao and J.l: ritsoona Devi. It is his further case that late K Radhakrishnaiah l- as acquired /r I 3 AK5,] & ETD,] cMA 244 202s house property bearing No.77lA, West Marredpally, Secunderabad under a lease deed dated 10.02.1g61 in an area of 755.55 sq.yards and that Radhrakrishnaiah executed a will dated 26.12.i974 which was reglstered vide document No.21 of 1993 bequeathing his property to his three children giving 40,,/o (3O2.22Sq.yards) to his eldest son K.Nagendar Rao, 4O%o (302.22 Sq.yards) to his second son Katta Seshagiri Rao and 20% (151 .1.1 Sq.yards) to his daughter t\4rs.poornima. Further that Katta Radhakrishnaiah has acquired an adjacent property admeasuring 300.22 sq.yards in the name of his wife Katta Laxmibai vide lease deed document No.652 of 1967 dated 12.02.1967 11 is his further case that Smt.Laxmi Bai also has executed a Will dated 26.12.1914 bequeathing her house property with 1 1% share each to her grandsons i.e. the sons of Katta Nagendar Rao namery Katta Srinivas Rao, Katta Janardhan Rao and a share ol 12o/o to prasoona Devi and a share of 33% to [/lr.Katta Seshagiri Rao which equals to 99.07 Sq.yards and further a share of 33o/o to Mrs poornima, which equals to 99.07 Sq.yards. After the demise of Katta Radhakrrshnaiah and K.Laxmi Bai, Katta Seshagiri Rao received 401.2g Sq yards in house property No.77lA and 7 7 I B, West t\Iaredpally, Secunderabad. t t 4 \ -'---'1 A(5,] & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 -

5. After the demise of petitioner's grandparents here was a family settlement deed entered orr 05.02.'l 999 i e. prior to amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act arr'olg the legal heirs of Katta Radhakrishnaiah and Laxmi Bai in rnrlri;h Seshagiri Rao, the petitioner's father has relinquished his right rver his share of property to the petitioner l.e. part of house No.l'zlA and 77lB Subsequently, during the settlement of accounts betr, ei3n Seshagiri Rao and Nagendar Rao, a lVlemorandum of Unde slanding was executed on 18.07.2009 wherein K.Seshagiri Rao or rt lf the above said property of 77lA and 77lB has relinquished 250 lic.ayrds to the LRs of K.Nagender Rao and 'l 5'1 .29 Sq.yards r,rr:s offered as collateral security to the LRs of K.Nagender Rao.

6. lt is his further case that prior to relinquishing rh -' petrtioner's share of 401 .29 Sq.yards by his father, he har; ,)xecuted an undertaking by mentioning that he would give 400 l;c yards in his self acquired property i.e. H.No.C-6, Vikran ouri Colony, Secunderabad out of the total house admeasuringt 7 't6 Sq.yards which is referred to as schedule-A property in this ca;e lnitially the petitioner's father K.Seshagiri Rao entertained ,6 161,'rntion of giving the house bearing No.77lA and 77lB at West lvl rredpally over 401 .29 Sq.yards to the petitioner herein but ;it'ce he has t. i -4 AKS,] & ETD,] cMA 244-2025 I relinquished his right over the said property towards the legal heirs of his brother Nagender Rao, he has mentioned by an undertaking that he would give 400 Sq yards out of the Schedule-A property to the.petitioner herein and that as per the said undertaking he is entitled to 400 sq'yards out of the 716 Sq'yards in schedule-A property. He further submitted that schedule-A property was purchased by the earnings of his father and also by availing a loan from LIC in the name of his mother and that his mother was a house wife and she did not have any earnings of her own' 7 . He further averred that in the lT returns filed by respondent No.1 (K Damayanti), she has mentioned that she has taken loan from the LIC to purchase the property and also that she has taken a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the petitioner herein when he was only 11 years old at the tlme of purchastng the schedule-A property He submits that he was not in an age to consent for the same and the respondent No.1 has not obtained the permission of the Court to utilize his funds for purchasing the said property lt is his further case that when a search and seizure was conducted by the income tax department his father stated to the income tax authorities that schedule-A property was acquired by him and also that the entire I 6 ,1K S I & [ID,] ( Nl:\ 2,14 2025 gold ornaments belong to him and that the said st,)t3ments of his father were never opposed by his mother in any leg:rl oru m B. He further submitted that on 26 12 2000 thr: lf Department ordered for attachment of schedule-A property and lrirt even at that point of time his mother never sought for any legal 'lrnedy and that his father K.Seshagiri Rao has cleared the entir,r oan and got released the schedule-A property from the attachmi r1l and also got released the gold jewellery under C-schedule bul as K.Seshagiri Rao passed away the release of the said ornament; s pending for want of legal heir certificate

9. lt is his case that on attaining malority he has lcen reminding his father and mother about the fulfillment of tl'r,:i promise for transfer of schedule-A property in his favour and 1-rt:y have been assuring him that at the appropriate time they woul I io it and they made such a promise in front of the relatives and .ilc ers and thus, he believed their words. lt is his case that during 1re rllness of his father in the year 2013, he himself, his wife and di ughter used to take care of his father and that unfortunately his fath,:r passed away on 02.11.2013 as he suffered with cancer of duode rtrm. His case is that immediately after the death of his fathe: the sons of ,/t , 7 AKS,] & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 Nagendar Rao started harassing him to pay Rs.S Crores threatening him that they wourd fire cases against him if he does not pay that amount and further they have also filed O.S.No.69 of 2013 which was dismissed for default and O.S.No.964 of 2O1S was also filed which was dismissed with exemplary costs.

10. He further submitted that a suit for recovery of money vide O.S No.06 of 2003 was filed by Nagendar Rao, Seshagiri Rao and K.Sreenivas Rao against one Haridas Family for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,66,00,000/- and the said suit is renumbered as C O.S No.53 of 2016 and it is still pending The said lis is with regard to the recovery of balance amount of their shares belonging to Katta family members in t\//s.Fenoplast Ltd lt is his further case that in 1996 when he was still a minor he had been bequeathed with company shares to a tune of Rs.2,85,4601 and that the said holding of the petitioner comes to 18% of the totat family holding and in monitory terms it could be of Rs.'l ,16 64,000/- value, which was never revealed to him by his parents and that the said shares were also sold away without taking any permission of the Court and without being any benefits passed on to him. He has learnt about the said facts when he was impleaded along with his mother and sisters in the above said case as legal heirs in theyear 2014. On ) t) i J 3 .'.{) I & EID,j t\1.'..)44 2025 gathering such information, he filed a suit for recove,,'y' of shares of M/s.Fenoplast Ltd, which was numbered as O.S.No.,i1 of 2017 and now renumbered as C.O.S.No.9 of 202'1

11. He further submitted that an AOP is pendir l between his father, mother and himself on one side as petitioners ,rrrd the LRs of Katta Nagender Rao on the other side as responde rt; before the sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator- has submitted 'i.; resignation and after the arbrtrator resigned, he filed an arbitrat o r application No.41 of 2016 in the High Court of Telangana for aJ; rointment of a Neutral Arbitrator and that on 02.01.2020, the Higir ( ourt passed orders appointing a sole arbitrator and the arbitrati<: 'r proceedings are pending

12. He further submitted that there is another l,'.) ) No.237 of 2018 filed by K.Srinivasa Rao for a relief of about Rs f .i,47.00.0001 based on all sorts of bogus and time barred claim. : .r'suant to the death of Nagender Rao, his sons and also K.Seshi ,g ri Rao have approached arbitrator A.V.Sadasiva to settle the l: :) d ng ISSUCS and once again an arbitration agreement dated 1 (17 2009 rvas entered upon and pursuant to which a reconciliatior )TOCESS WAS conducted and a memorandum of understanding dat ,,c1 18.07 2009 *_ ___-d 9 AKS,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 r - was entered for resolving all the issues. He further submitted that in the said arbitration case, LRs of late Nagender Rao have filed a counter claim of Rs.9,39,27,3001 and that in the said arbitration proceedings 50o/o of the fee i.e. to an extent of Rs.9,78,9504 was paid solely by him. lt is his case that in all the cases filed against his father, he has been defending and he has been bearing all the legal expenses. '13. lt is his case that he has been living in the schedule-A property ever since he was 13 years old and that he is taking care of the maintenance of property and all the property tax, water supply bills and electricity bills were paid by him and that he is residing for the past 30 years in the schedule A-property. lt is his further case that he and his family are taking care of his mother Damayanti until recently and that their parents have spent huge amounts towards the education and marriage expenses of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are his sisters and that they have given away a huge dowry and 1 Kg gold ornaments to each of them at the time of marriage. He submitted that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Katta Seshagiri Rao and that according to the undertaking given by him, he is entitled to 400 Sq.yards in the petition A-Schedule Property and the properties ) I I AKS,J & ETO,] cMA 244 2025 10 i mentioned in the other two schedules have to be parl ti:r.red among them. On 08.05.2022, his sisters came to his house i' nd demanded his mother/respondent No.1 to gift the entire A-schec 'lle prope(y in their favour for which there was a galata between lrrlm and from then on the respondents 2 and 3 have taken responcettt No 1 along with them and ever since then she is residing with re spondent No 3 and that while leaving the house they have taken all :he documents along with them. lt is his case that he requested tl ilrn not to take respondent No.1 with them because he is the only r;cn and has to take care but they did not heed to his request'

14. lt is his case that subsequently, his mother arrl sisters have filed O.S.No.101 of 2022 on the file of the Xll rr'dditional Chief Judge, Secunderabad for declaration of legal heirs r'rnd that he was shown as respondent. The suit is pending adjudic:rti :n and that in the said suit they have stated that they are entitled lo receiving the petition C-schedule property i.e. gold ornaments a''rj they are bent that all upon depriving him of his share' He once again r 'rilerated the properties are self acquired properties of his la'her and thus' they cannot be given solely to respondent *ot 2 a.rl 3 herein lt is further contended that the petitioner along with w'rl -wishers have requested the respondents to do smooth partition rf schedule A' B .r'r I J 11 AKS,] & ETD,J cMA )44 2A25 and C properties i.e. from Schedule_A property he is entifled to 400 sq.yards, schedule-B property has to be partitioned amongst the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and schedure-c arso shourd be partitioned between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to 3. He has also learnt from the reliable sources that they are bent upon alienating the schedule-A property in favour of third parties. Therefore, he wants to safeguard hrs interest in the suit schedule property and that unress an inlunction is granted, the schedure-A property may be alienated to third parties, hence, he prays for injunction of restraining the respondents from alienating the Schedule A and B properties.

15. The respondents have filed counter admitting the rnler se relationship among the parties and also the family lineage from K.Radhakrishnaiah and also the lineage of Katta Nagender Rao and his sons. .However, they denied that the propertres are the self acquired properties of rate Katta seshagiri Rao. rt is their contention that A-schedule property is self acquired property of the respondent No. 1/K. Damayanthi. It is the case of respondents that respondent No.1 has purchased the suit schedule_A property from a vendor Smt.Nirmara under registered sare deed dated 04.02.1gg1 by obtaining LIC loan and other loans taken from the other family I l t) ,\(!,t & LTD,I ( t\,t,\ )4:t 1025 members and that the said property is her self ?c,: U fed property. .l They are not disputing the petitioner's contention th,,rt he schedule- B property is the self acquired property of B.Seshagr lao and they also admitted that the said B-property is liable tcr L e partrtioned among the family members. lt is further acl .r tted by the respondents about the jewellery under C-schedule p o terty which is lying with the lT Department and it is also admittecl tlrat they have filed O.S.No.1O1 of 2022 seeking legal heir certificatt

16. lt is the case of the respondent No. 1 that sche JL le C property is not the self acquired property of K Seshagiri Ra<: A part of the jewellery of schedule-C property belongs to her mot ror- in-law and the other part was purchased by K.Seshagiri Rao t is her case that the petitioner is not entitled to schedule-A prol ,e rty at all and that it is her self acquired property and she has zr s I executed a settlement deed dated 26.06.2023 in favour of her trvo daughters vide registerecl document No.1167 of 2023.

17. The respondents have not disputed the acquisition of properties and execution of will by Radhakrishnaiah '1 he executron of Will by Laxmibai Wo. Radhakrishnaiah is also n: I Jisputed and further they have admitted that after the death of R, rl rakrishnaiah, I 13 AKs,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 late Seshagiri Rao has received 401 .29 Sq.yards in house property No.77lA and 771B, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. They have also admitted the MOU dated 18.07.20d9 executed between K.Seshagiri Rao and respondent No.1 with the LRs of K.Nagender Rao. But their contention is that the said MOU is inadmissible in evidence as it is neither properly stamped nor registered. They also contended that K.Seshagiri Rao is entitled to 151 .29 Sq.yards in the said property and that the said family settlement deed is not connected to the schedule-A property in any way. They further denied the averment that prior to relinquishing the alleged petitioner's share of 40'1 Sq.yards, K.Seshagiri Rao has given an undertaking that he would give 400 Sq.yards in schedule-A property to the petitioner.

18. Respondent No.1 further contended that the alleged family settlement deed dated 05.02.1999 is also inadmissible in evidence as it lacks proper stamp duty and registration. She further denied saying that there was no such undertaking given by her husband in respect of schedule-A property to the petitioner. She denied that her husband spent Rs.19 Lakhs from his earnings and also availed LIC loan to purchase schedule-A property. \ i 14 AKS,J & ETD,I cMA. 244 2425 '19. The respondents further contend that the very : aim made by the petitioner that schedule-A pi'operty is a Benami p'operty would defeat his case as this Court would not have an,, urisdiction in respect of benami properties covered under the afcrre,said Act and also that in view of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Br:rrami Property Transactions Act, the petitioner can neither claim r cr enforce the right in respect of benami property against a person n whose name the property stands, as such, the petitioner has n,., right over the schedule-A property and further reiterated that the r,rard property is purchased by respondent No.'l and that it is he ;elf acquired property

20. The respondent No.1 further denied to have a<en any loan from the petitioner at his age of 'l 1 years to purchas,,r'he schedule- A property. The ill-health and the death of her hur;t,and was not disputed but she denied the averment made by thr. lretitioner that he was the only person who has taken care of h. lSeshagiri Rao during his illness. lt is her case that her daughle's also have supported the medical bills and that all of them hav,,r .aken care of her husband K.Seshagiri Rao during his illness. She, also admits the pendency of other cases before the Commercia, rlourt and that Kattadshagiri Rao's family as a whole are entitled to Rs.16 Lakhs 15 AKS,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 I share and it is further submitted by her that Rs.16 Lakhs of shares are receivable by Katta family from Mis.Fenoplast Limited and that her daughters were gifted shares in various companies and they were holding the same and that she has no knowledge whether the petitioner's grandfather bequeathed alleged company shares of 2,85,460 to the petitioner and she denies that the shares belonging to petitioner were sold away without his permission and in fact she has no knowledge about the sale of shares standing in the name of the petilioner. She also admits the pendency of arbitration proceedings between herself, her husband and the petitioner being on one side and the LRs of Nagender Rao on the other and that she herself and her daughters have contributed to the legal expenses as and when demanded by the petitioner and that she has been signing all the affidavits and papers put forth by the petitioner from time to time. She also stated that the electricity, water and maintenance charges were being collected by the petitioner from her time to time. She further alleges that the petitioner never took care of her and that it is her daughters who took care of her at all times and she further stated that in her income tax returns she has shown the purchase of schedule_A property and the source of purchase from LIC loan and the loans 16 AKS,J & E ID,J cMA 244 2025 taken from other daughters etc., Apart from beinr rn income tax assessee, she is also a weaith tax assessee. Sh, r 'urther alleges that the petitioner has ill{reated, abused and thrr;alened her and thus, he was compelled to move out of the schedul(,r\ property and she has started residing with her younger daught _=,r and that the petitioner is raising a false claim over the schedule.A property and she further denied the allegation that they are tiyinr ro alienate the property by creating third party interest. 21 . Thus, in all, the case of the respondents is that schedule_A property is the self acquired property of respondent \:.1 while they have submitted that schedule-B property is purr hased by late K.Seshagiri Rao and thus, it is entifled to be partiti :rred among all the parties while schedule-C property, the jew,,:llery is parfly purchased by K.Seshagiri rao and a part of it w,rs inherited by respondent No.1 from her mother-in-law. Thus, th?y prayed to dismiss the petition saying that the petitioner does n rt have a prima facie case as the schedule-A is self acquired propert,,rlf respondent No.1.

22. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court lrzrs framed the following point for consideration: l7 AKs,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 "Whether the petitioner is entifled for the relief as prayed for?"

23. on hearing both the parties, the triar court has dismissed the petition on merits by considering the documents produced before the Court and also considering the arguments put forth by both the parties. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present CMA is filed before this Court.

24. Heard the submissions of Sri Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents.

25. The learned appellant counsel submits that the schedule_A property is the self acquired property of late K.Seshagiri Rao and that he promised during his life time that he would give away 400 Sq.yards in favour of the petitioner by giving an undertaking and that the petitioner herein is entiiled to 400 sq.yards in petition schedule-A property. lt is his further case that schedule_B and C properties are also the self acquired properties of K.Seshagiri Rao and that it can be partitioned equally among all the parties, though the schedule-C jewellery property is lying with the income tax I t 18 AKS,J & ETD,] cMA 244 2025 \ department which was seized during raid, and :'le dues were .'l cleared by K.seshagiri rao during his life time but thrr release of the property is pending for want of legal heir certifica :.' He further argued that schedule A to C properties are the, l;elf acquired properties of late K.Seshagiri Rao, the father of the p;,:rlitioner herein and thus, he is entitled to equal shares in B and C r;r:redule, while he is entitled to 400 Sq.yards in Schedule-A p.cperty as an undertaking was given by K.Seshagiri Rao during hi: life time. He further argued that the respondents are trying r:t alienate the property in favour of third parties and therefore, tc, orotect the interest of the petitioner, an injunction needs to ber g ranted in his favour and that the respondents have to be r.:strained from alienating the schedule A and B properties in favour r,f third parties.

26. The learned respondents counsel, on the o'tr-'r hand, has submitted that schedule-A property is the self acqui 'ed property of respondent No.'1 and that the petitioner has no righl to claim in the said property and he is not entitled to any share in rh-= A-schedule property. He further argued that schedule-B p'cperty is the property acquired by Seshagiri Rao, therefore, all rl.r: parties are entitled to shares in the said B schedule properl i. He further argued that the release of schedule-C property is :rending before -/t I 19 AKs,J & ETD,I cMA, 244 2025 the income tax authority for want of legal heir certificate. He also submitted that the respondents have filed a suit for legal heir certificate and once that is obtained, they can pursue the remedies with the income tax authorities and that C-schedule property is not available right now for partition. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the respondents never entertained any intention to alienate the petition schedule properties and that schedule-A property is already settled towards respondent Nos-2 and 3 by respondent No.1 as she is the absolute owner of the schedule-A property. Thus, schedule-A property is not available for partition and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief of injunction against these properties. 27 . Having heard the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from alienating the Schedule A and B properties? 2) Whether the order and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 3) To what relief? I I 2_0 AKS,] & ETO,J c|l,l,A 244 2025

28. POINT NO .1: a) The petitioner herein is seeking injunctior estraining the respondents from alienating schedule A and B :)roperties. For doing so he has to prove that he has a prima facr,; 3ssg and also that the balance of convenience tirts in his favour ar c if injunction is not granted he wouid be put to irreparable loss and n;ury. b) Admittedly, the schedule_A property stands n the name of respondent No.1/K.Damayanti. lt is the case of th,r oetitioner that the said property was purchased by his father in :rt(, name of his mother K.Damayanti and that Damayanti did not l-,rlre any source of income and that she is only a house wife and ther,rf,-rre, his father has purchased from his funds. c) A perusal of sale deed/Ex.p1 dated 04.02.1gg. ieveals that it is purchased by K.Damayanti from one Nirmala an:l t proves the ownership of A. Damayanti over the schedule_A prop€ .t/. d) The title is not in dispute but the source of funcj : ,s in dispute, It is the case of the petitioner that it was purchased t :/ his father in the name of his mother, while the case of the respr:rn,ient No.i is that she has purchased the property on her own by ottaining LIC loan and also the loan from other family members. I I rxmCK--r# /.- 2l AKS,J & ETD,I cMA 244 2025 e) While advancing arguments the respondents counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in the counter filed by the respondents in AOP No.237 of 2018 it was mentioned by the respondents that the property was purchased by K.Damayanti who is respondent No.1 herein and that it is her self acquired property. The AOP No.237 of 2018 was filed by the sons of K.Nagender Rao against K.Damayanti, K.Laxmikanth, Poornima and Krishna Priya. That means the petitioner herein is respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.'l in the said AOP. ln the counter filed by the respondents in this case they have clearly stated that the said document i.e. the counter in AOP is filed as Ex.R2 in the present case. A perusal of the said Ex.R2 reveals that the petitioner herein and his mother/K.Damayanti have stated that the schedule-A property is the self acquired prope(y of K.Damayanti and the same can be seen from the income tax and wealth tax returns submitted by her. This submission falsifies the case of the petitioner herein. f) While deciding a temporary injunction application, the Court cannot go in detail into the evidentiary aspect, however prima facie case has to be established by the petitioner. By looking into these documents i.e. Exs.P'l and R2 cumulatively, an inference can be I t 22 AKs,J & ETD,I cMA 244 2425 drawn that schedule-A property is purchased by k Damayanti and that it is her self acquired property. The petitione lrerein himself has submitted the said counter before the arbitr:rtc,r saying that schedule 'A' property is self acquired property of nrspondent No.'l and now he cannot turn around and state contrrl ry to his own statement. Further, the petitioner says that tl- ere was an undertaking given by his father. lt is only an oral inlertaking and that there is no document to that effect. S) A perusal of the family settlement deed da eC 05.02.1 999 reveals that K.Seshagiri Rao, party No.4, keepir ,q in view the welfare of his only son i.e. pafty No.6 in order thal h,'t develop the property into a profitable manner, has relinquishe(.t ttis rights and ownership of his 40%o share in plot No.77/A and 3i1),o share in Plot No.77/B in favour of his only son i.e. pafty No.6, whr., vritl hereinafter be the absolute owner of the schedule-ll property. Eut apart from that there is no other mention in the said family settlerrr ent deed and it has no nexus at all to the schedule-A property ir this present petition. But the petitioner has contended that prior :c relinquishing his share in the ancestral property, his father has p orised to give him 400 Sq.yards in the schedule-A property. Whilr,r 'he recitals of family settlement deed under Ex.P6 does not sl o nr the same. 23 AKs,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 Ex.P9 is the settlement deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 setfling the property under schedule-A to both her daughters. Thus, once the setflement deed got executed by the owner of the property, schedule-A property would not be available for partition and more so, the pima facie case of the petitioner cannot be held to be established in view of all these documents. h) Prima facie the petitioner should be able to prove that he has interest in the Schedule-A property and that his interest needs to be protected. But by virtue of these Exs.p1, pg and R2, all these three documents would throw away the contention of the petitioner that the schedule-A property is the self acquired property of his father. The title aspect cannot be looked into at this juncture and the total case should be decided on merits, the truth or falsity of the statements and the validity of the documents would be subjected to trial and it would be only after full-fledged trial that the source of funds and the purchase of the said property and the mode of acquisition and further the rights of the parties can be determined. However, pima facie, it cannot be held that the petitioner has , interest in the schedule-A property to grant any injunction in his t II favour. Admittedly, schedule-B property is the prope(y acquired by cMA )44 2025 r! AKS,] & ETD,J 24 late K.Seshagiri Rao and the respondents also a(rn it that all of them are equally entitled to shares in the said Irr':perty The respondents further denied the threat of alienation. llowever, the petitioner counsel has vehemently argued that the l:t)lnter in AOP cannot be put against them to defeat the rights crt he petitioner herein and that once if alienation of Schedule 4 2r''rJ B properties takes place, the interest of petitioner if any at the c<r'r<'lusion of trial cannot be protected if the properties are not availabk' lor partition. Admittedly. schedule B properties are availa'rltl for partition i) and that all lhe four parties are entitled to equerl share in the properties, even then the petitioner cannot clairn a ny injunction against the alienation of the entire suit schedule pr rlrerty under B schedule, he can only claim to the extent of his 1,"ttt share in the property. j) Thus, to avoid any complication.s and tc avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, this Court opines that tlre interest of justice would be met if 1i4th share in the suit schedu I B' property is protected from alienation during the pendency of prc:;eeCings. L_- 25 AKS,J & ETD,J cMA 244 2025 k) Threat of alienation is pleaded by the petitioner and denied by the respondents. However, admittedly, schedule-B property is the self acquired property of Seshagiri Rao and is bound to be partitioned among all the four equally. Thus, in case if there is any alienation during the pendency of proceedings that would result in multiplicity of proceedings and if the share of the petitioner is also alienated, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury l) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Manoj Arora v. Mamta Aroral , wherein it was held that it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known sources, and in which position, the property purchased will not be a benami property but the property will be of the de jure owner/plaintiff/husband and not of the de facfo owner, being the respondenUdefendanUwife. But in the piesent case the petitioner herein has stated that schedule-A property to be the self acquired property of the respondent No.'l i.e. his mother as admitted in AOP No.237 of 2018, therefore, it can be held that the petitioner contradicts his own submission and the said facts do not get attracted to the present case. AIRONLIN E 2018 DEL 1166 \ I i 1 ).6 AKS,I & ETD,] cMA 244 2025 m) The learned counsel for the appellant has fulther relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sau,e,bh Gupta v. Smt.Archna Gupta?', wherein it was held that th,:r suit schedule property should be protected to safeguard the inter:rs of the parties as in the case, prima facie the property is joint Hindt f amily property and protection of property from transferring to r,r third party is necessary, consequently in such case protectio'r is necessary against further transferring the property or changirrg the nature of the same, if it is not pi'otected. n) ln the light of the said decision in Saurabi., Gupta's case (supra) and to protect the suit schedule prop(, rly during the pendency of the proceedings and further to avoiri multiplicity of proceedings, it is opined that injunction can be gra rted restraining the respondents from alienating Schedule B propert el, to the extent of 1/4th share of the petitioner. Point No.f is answer:)c accordingly.

29. POTNT NO.2: ln view of the reasoned findings arrived at l,cint No.1, it is held that the order passed by the trial Court is not sr. stainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2024 SCC OnLine All 2268 L -.--_-.r--::=-j_=: ) AKs,J & ETO,J cMA_244-2025 21 30 POIN TN O.3l lntheresult'theCMAispartlyallowedsettingasidethe order, dated 01 04'2025' Passed in 1.A.No.203 of 2024 rn O S.No.26 of 2024 by the learned Xll Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the respondents are temporarily restrained from alienating the schedule B properties to the extent of 1/4th share of the petitioner' No costs' tVliscellaneousApplications,ifany,pendinginthisappeal shall stand closed sD/-KisRtNA[t?+[iR ,ITRUE COPY/' CTION OFFICER o ne F a i r .. o lr,3,,[i"tTi]i,i'li"f ot :,,[?"t1;li,;Th o ne F a i r " " i na n d Ku m a r g::*b l1 jb"il,',"" Ii" "' " Dev i Ea d a To,

1. 2. J.

4. E 6 7 union or lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and companv - Advocates Association Library, High Court for the TheXllAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCourt,secunderabad- t;r:i,ff:1"&cretary, Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana t ;H,":ii;ftrnu, lisn court Buildings at Hvderabad #" * i" siisv"o G-house Basha' Advocate-[oPUC] il;; i" sii n n Achuthanand' Advocate [oPUC] Two CD CoPies DUPSL I J.3 10 iii ? HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.244 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CMA 1Io