The High Court · 2025

6611t15, Prashanthi Hills' Srilingampally, R R Dist' N. Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Late Advaiah, Aged Major, Occ ri.Nli. s-roa, Backside Bharath Petrol Pump, Raidurg Srilingampally, R. R.Dist. N Raiu Yadav. S/o Late Advaiah, Aged Major, Occ' Business, R/o H No S- eumpl RaiOu'rg Pan Maktha; Serilingampally, i'Od, 6i"r,!t,i'gharath R.R.Dist. N. Vinod Yadav, S/o Late Narasimha Yadav,Aged Major, Occ' Business'8/o ii.r.l'.i'.')s-5i-iloi-r.ro. 51, subramanya colony, Bhiragiguda, sun citv, R.R.Dist. Naveen Yadav, S/o Late Narasimha Yadav, Aged Major, Occ . BushessR/o iili.i". zs-si 'pioi tto.st,- Subr"rrnv, co6nv, Bhiragiguda, Sun. citv' R.R.Dist.N "'ResPondents Smt. N. Balamani, Wo. Late Nagapuri Yadaiah, Aged' Major' Occ' iousewite, R/o. H. No. 5-108, Rayadurg, Hyderabad' 4 5 t) 7 o

9. N. Suresh Yadav, S/o. Late Nagapuri Yadaiah, Agerd. 39 yr;ars, Occ. Pvt Employee R/o. tl. No. 5-108, Rayadurg, Hyderabad

10.N. Sai Yadav, S/o. Late Nagapuri Yadaiah, Agec. 33 years, Occ. Pvt Employee R/o. t1. No.5-108, Rayadurg, Hyderabad

11. C. Sumalatha. [)/o. Late Nagapuri Yadaiah, Aged.Major, Occ.F]ousewife, R/o. H. No.5-108, Rayadurg, Hyderabad

12.G. Sandhya, D/c. Late Nagapuri Yadaiah, Aged. Major, Ocr:. l'lousewife R/o- H. Hyderabad (RRB to 12 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased respondent 2 vide Co. Dt.21,tA1l2O25 in lA No 212O25 in CMA No'. 48912A22'l Rayadurg, 5-108, Ncr .. Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under ()rder 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 of CPC :raying that in the circumstances stzrted in the affidavit f iled in support o1. the pet tion, the High Court may be p eased to grant interim injunction reri;training the Respondents/Defend:rnts, from alienating or creating any third part',, interest over the petition schedule )'operty, pending disposal of main Cl,4A. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 22 Rule 4 R/w Section '15'1 of CPC grraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ol the pet tion, the High Court may be please,j to permit the petitioner herein to bring the legal heirs of the Respondent No. ll as party Respondent No. 8 to 12 in the ab,tve appeal in Clt/lA No. 489 of 2023 and as well as to all lAs. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s . A V Swamy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 : M.R. S. Srinivas The Court delivered tlre following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND '"- -."'' 'i.THE HdNouRABtE sMT. JUsrIcE p:sREtstSBtiH{:':rr:?ri'-:':';r'r:i.''' CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.489 of 2o23 JUDGMENT: lper llon'bLe S'rnt. .,/&sllce .l'.s-ree "51idhc/ This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hled against the Order dated 04.09.2023 in I.A.No.31 ol 2022 in O.S.No.l18O of 2022 passed by tl-rc learncd Scnior Civil .Iudgc, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The appellant hr:rcin has filcd a petition bcfore the trial Courf ulrle I.A.No.3l of 2022 in U.S.No.1180 of 2022, for granting temporary injunction rcstraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit schedule propcrty and not to alicnatc the suit schcdulc property in favour of third parLics. The t-rial Courl aftcr considcrir-rg lhe arguments of both sides.dismissed the said pctition. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellant has preferrccl thc present Civil Misceilaneous Appea I .

3. The learncd Counscl for tl-tc appellant mainly contended that appcllant has liled all thc rcquireci documents under Exs.Pl to P7 to substantiatc ht:r' stand. She filcd a suit for 2 partiti(,n o - thc joint familv propertr,. and rerluestccl fi;r not to alienare thr: sutt schedule property, as the res,pond:n _s have no right t:, scli :he entire properry. Appellant soullht fb: l / Trrr share over llle lo irl property. She denied thc contctts ,:rf tlLe counter filed b1' t.lrr rcspondcn ts and r-r:qucstccl t he Court tc set aside the Order pe ssed by thc trial Court.

4. r\ppe,l,Lnt hercin has filed thc Suit ujr.ie O St.lro 11gO of 2022,',:r pii-rition and sr:par:i(r: possession of the sr_ri sci,redule propcr'-.v against the respondenls and statcd thal ,)n: Advaiah rvas the.alt:;oltrLe ourner and posscssor of the open 1tl,rl, bearing No.20, zr<ln-r: ,rsuring 550 Sq.yrcis in Sy.No.3, situatcd :t Raidurg Pan Maqta Vil1age, Serilingampzrlly Mandal, R.ll.Di;trict, by virtue r>f rr 5lrstered sale decd bearing docurnent N0.,ts005 of 1999, <1atc,l i5,11.1999. S[.rc further state<] tharl l-re died intestatr: on 13.O6.2002, leaving behind respondenls \o.1 to 5 and thr: altpcllanL herein as his legal heirs. She it:Ls aiso filed rhe pcdigrcc rl Llrc Advaiah li tlc:Lail in Lirc plai tr alr.l soughL for 1 / 7th sh are i:'r t he surt sche dule property. D ur ng r h r: rcrnd ency of the surt. shc filed a petition for grantirLg of al-interim injunction rr':;training the respondents from inlerferirrg with her peaceful possession and cnjoyment of the srri: s<:hedule propertv anc also sought for not to alienate thr: pr,t1t616. 16 1fi6 1 I ) third parties during the pendency of the suit. In the said petition, appellant herein stated that when she requested for partition on 30.O5.2022, respondents did not agree. Hence, she filed the suit, but the trial Court observed that she cannot ask for two reliefs in one petition and moreover she stated that they are in joint possession and injunction cannot be granted against the co-owners and accordingly dismissed the petition. Perusal of the plaint shows that appellant along with respondents are in joint possession of thc sr-rit schcdulc property, as such she paid thc Court fee of Rs.200/- undcr Section 3aQ) ol A.P.C.F & S.V Act. She has filed trx.Pl to show that suit property belongs to her grandfather.

5. In thc counter [rled by the respondents, they denied all the allegations and stated that they acquired the propert5r from the then Govcrnment in 2012 by u,ay of Deeds ol Conveyance. They have also filed the decds of conveyance, which are in the name of respondenL No.1 and in the name of wife of respondent No.2 and further stated that appellant has already received her share at the time of her marriage.'The father of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 5 had alrcady gifted a plot to the appellant measuring an extent of 15O Sq.yrds in Mettuguda, Secunderabad and shc had construcLed a house and living in I l t, I i l I i ( > I -l that. More rrver, respondent No.2 gave Rs.i3,O0.CrO(r/_ to the appellaLnt a t the time of hcr house consLruction irnr: 1hus she is not cnlitlec lor any share in thc suit scl,reclule prol)(.rL /.

6. hs th e appellant hcrein filed the suit f,tr ltartition, considr:rin6, the above arguments the quesrion o. granting injunction r:straining the rcspondcnts lrom irrterf crin q u,ith her peacef,l p(,s;scssion does not arisc as shc failecl to )ro'e that she is il por;session of the suit scheclule prot)ert\. W rr:Lhcr the propcrt\' I)(ltains to Advaiah rrr it pcrLains to L,axnr:ln:r:r or to the r.r.ilir of -r:spondent No.2 i.e., N.Balamanr ir; to b-. <.ecided by the trial Cor- rt after adducing cvidence of botlt sir.lcs rLncl rt is a triabb issue . Therefore, this Court finds Lhar iL Ls .jr_LsL and reason:-.ltle to direct the rcspondents not Lo alicnaLr thr: suit schedule property in favour oI thircl partics du-ing tlte pendency of thc s-rit Lt avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

7. IrL tht: rcsult, the present Civil Miscelllneous Appeal is allowed by se,tting aside the Order of the trial Oourt in LA.No.31 of 2O2i', in O S.No.1180 of 2022, dated O4.Og.,.202?,. Tlrerr: shall be no ordcr fs to cosls. 5 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR secr&otrcea

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpaily.(With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri. A V Swamy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DL/gh I I l ,.-.N .$ !4 Il I ) I ,.., ./. /., /' ,. / a) \s \ t\ :l (ti I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:271031202!5 JUDGMENT CMA.No.489 of 2023 ALLOWING THE C.M.A I