The High Court · 2025

Smt. Bhagya.Laxmi Rathor, wo. Arvind Kumar Rathor, Aged about 63 years, occ. Housew-ife, R:/o. p.rot.N9.]^s_, progressive corony-1, rrainovir.isnag;ipost, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, S0OOg. AND ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 2

1. Smt..T.Ushafani, D/o.,9.D..Jayaram Mugaliar, W/o. Late T. pratap Singh, Aged about 73 vears, occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. zs-6--ss)iiz, 5fiaiiuano Hyderabad. 2. s.mt. MeeraSinha, D/o. cD.Jayaram Mudariar, wo_. D. Ranveer Sinha, Aged about 66 years, Occ.. tloyqqyttg, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H f.fo- C_+_+'OAlf , Narayanguda, Hyderabad, SOOOZT. Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affid.avit fired in support of the petitioh, Ine High court may-ne pr"*Li to vacate the order dated 16-03-2023 in cMA No. 474 of 2022 peiding ii.po"ur or the appeal. ...RespondentslRespondents 7 CIVIL MISCEL LA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 478 oF 2022 Appear under order 43 rure 1 0f cpc against the order dated 22.0g.2022 passed in r.A. No. 545 0t 2021 in o.s. No. 73 0f 2021 0n the fire of the court of the Family Court -cum- IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy. Between: Smt. T.Usha Rani, D/o. C.D- Jayaram Mudatiar, Wl" lqt"^l_p^ratap Singh, Aged fl?::irJi, vears' occ' Houiewire, Rv".'-i-i.t'i". zt-a-aszfii,'5r,Xii'6i"or, AND ...PETIT|oNER/APPELLANT

1. smt. Meera sinha, D/o.. c.D.JayaramMudariar, wo. D. Ranveer Sinha. Aoed about 66 years, Occ. Housewif6, ny". HL.r"li'-+_+i;a7i, r.rjirv",.;rj;:,^r. Hyderabad, 500027. 2. Smt. Bhagya Laxmi R^athor, D{o. C.D. Jayaram l\rludaliar, Wo. Arvind Kumar F:lf,^o.r, {ged about 63 yea.is, oCc. rrou-#,ii6', Ryo. ptot No. 9-s- 321 1 0 I 1,P rasathi Cotony ( frleir ruf HMI Vi nor"ii<rsnaga r, Bowenpa lty, Secunderabad, 50009.' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or t" putitioi.,, inu'uigr,"iorrt may be pleased to grant temporary injunction'resiraining'the *rp".i",ii.,ii-.,"i,. heirs, successors in interest, agents eti., from atienating, irunsf"rriig'oi "iiJ*i"" encumbering the suit sched.utaproperty in O.S. f.fo Za ot ZOZf penO]ng Jn't"#'fil" of Family Court-cum-lV Addl. District and Sessions ..luOge, Sanj;OAV description given below, pending disposal of tfre Clfrfn. ""'p"r,n" lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 148-ot cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the,affidavit filed_in support of the petiiion, tn"" Higr, corrt mav oe pG."J to extend the interim Qrder granted in itVR 47'8 0i 2022, dated 20.07.2023 tiil the disposal of the Appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: Smt' Bhagya r.ixmi Rathore, . w/o. Arvind Kumar Rathor, Aged about 63 vears. occ. Housewife, R/o. ptot No. ts, Frogies;i/"'boronv_i, -lrrrin"oirik##;: Bowenpally, Secunderabad, 50009.' -".:.ru[io]neaiesboni;;i'iii;.,;r-', I AND 'l . smt..T.Usha Rani, D/o. c.D. Jayaram Mudariar, wo. Late.T. pratao Sinoh Aged about 73 vears, occ. Houdewife, R/o. H.No. zi-aaiziiz, SniioJilEl', Hyderabad. ...Re+;;;";is/A;p"ii;;i 2. smt. Me-era Sinha, D/o. c.D.JayaramMudariar, wo. D. Ranveer Sinha. Aoed g.oqut 0.0 ygq,,sr Occ Housewif6, R/o. H.No. z-4_+aAf , Nirovingrjr,'","" Hyderabad, s00027. ...Red6onde;ts/R;apo"nt"it ruo. I Petition under section 'lsl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, irre uign court may ue pr"u."o to vacate the order dated: t6-o3-2023 in cMA No. 47g ot 2022 p"noing oi"fo"rr or the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant in both cases : Sri Vedula Srinivas representing Sri Thakur Nitender Singh Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in both cases : Sri A. Venkatesh representing M.S. Achyuth Bharatwaj Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in both cases : Ms. Bhagya Laxmi Rathor (party_ln-person) The Court delivered the following: THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL Nos. 474 AND 478 OF 2022' COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji) We have heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Sri Thakur Nitender Singh, learned counsel for the appellanVpetitioner, Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Sri tr4.S.Achyuth Bharatwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No.'l and Ms.Bhagya Laxmi Rathor, respondent No.2 appeared as party-in-person.

2. C.M.A.No.474 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 22.08.2022 in 1.A.No.548 of 2021 and C M.A.No.478 ot 2022 has been directed against the order dated 22.08.2022 in 1.A.No.545 of 2021 in O.S.No.73 ot 2021 . Both these lnterlocutory Applications were adjudged by a common order dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned lll Additional District Judge, FAC lV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. I 2 PSK.I & N tR'j Cma Nos 474 md 178 of2022

3. The impugned order being common and prayers in the lnterlocutory Applications being similar, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order'

4. The appellanVplaintiff, who is sister of the respondents/defendants filed the suit vlde O'S No'73 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6-00 gts., in Sy'Nos'1007, 1010' 101 1 and 1012' situated at Ameenpur Village, Sangareddy District (hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit schedule property').

5.(i) Briefly stated the relevant facts are that' the suit schedule property and other properties aie originally owned by one C.D.DhankotiMudaliarandafterhisdemise,thepropertieswere devolved on his three sons. One among them is the father of the appellant, respondents and four brothers'

5.(ii) Previously, a suit vide OS'No'219 of 1982' on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was filed by C.J.Shyam Sundar Mudaliar' who is brother of the appellanUplaintiff, against his father and paternal uncles namely C.D.Jayaram Mudaliar, C,D.Hemanth and C'D RamchanQer seeking parlition of house and agricultural properties shown in suit PSKJ & N1R.J Cma Nos {74 aM 4711 of2022 schedule 'A' to 'C' properties, wherein a preliminary decree was passed on settlement and the properties were shared among themselves, wherein 'C' schedule agricultural land was partitioned among the father of the appellant, who was defendant No.1,' defendant Nos.2 and 7, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 therein in

20.20:26.66:33.34 and accordingly, the shares were distributed. As the father of the appellant died, the other sons, appellant and defendants were brought on record as respondents. Thereafter, a final decree was passed on 08.04.2008 and delivery of possession of the respective shares took place upon the legal heirs of the deceased parties and the appellant, respondents and the brothers got Ac 14-00 gts., in the suit 'C' Schedule agricultural land. Out of it, four brothers of the appellant were allotted Ac.8-00 gts., and the appellant and respondents herein were given Ac.6-00 gts. 5 (iii) Subsequently, the sisters of the appellant i.e. respondents filed writ petitions befcre this Court seeking direction to the revenue authorities to mutate their names in respect of the land fell to their respective shares. On the directions in the Writ Petitions, the portion up to the extent of Ac.2-00 gts., was mutated in the names I of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4 PSK.J & N'I"R.J Cma Nos,17.1 and {78 of2022

6. The appellant's contention is that, there was no partition of the suit schedule property, inter se between herself and respondents and filed the suit seeking partition. Wherein filed

1.A.No.545 of 2021 seeking relief of temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating, transferring or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit and 1.A.No.548 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction against the respondents from altering the nature of the suit schedule property by raising constructions, pending the suit. l. Before the trial Court, the respondents contested that after passing a final decree, there was family settlemenUpartition of the properties assignrng respective shares in June, 2009. Basing on it, the respondents filed Writ Petitldns in 2011 and 2017 vide W.P.Nos.27365 of 2011 and 10461 of 2017 respectively and got transferred the property in their names. Further asserted that the appellant in the writ proceedings did not raise any objection and thereby impliedly admitted their plea ot inter se partition. Thus, the suit for partition is baseless and the prayer for interim direction of injunction would be of nature of injunction against the true owner. Thus, the petitions do not merit consideration , \'---- EftE -t PSI\.1& NTR.J ('ma Nos 474 and 178 of2022 B. The Court below by observing that the alienations of devolved share by the brothers without making the appellant and respondents as parties is establashing the Family Settlement of June, 2009 and if at all there was requirement of partition, the appellant should have filed an application in the Final Decree proceedings for proper consideration of the issue. Further, by observing that the contest as to proper notice on the appellant in the writ petition proceedings is not acceptable, dismissed the petitions.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contested that . lhough the respondents pleaded settlement deed/partition deed.3mong themselves, except pleading not even a copy of that document was placed on record. Further, the respondent No.1 in her Writ Petition vlde W.P.No.10461 of 2017 has not shown the appellant as a party. Likewise, in the writ petition filed blr the respondent No.2 i.e. W.P.No.27365 ot 2011, though the appellant was shown as the 14th respondent, the opportunity was not properly availed. However, the appellant in her Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29423 o'f 2017 had categorically pleaded for mutation of her name in respect of 1/3'd share out of the suit schedule property. However, this Court, by admitting the ./ \an 6 PSK.J & NTR,J Cnra Noi 17,1and'17{t of2022 I respondenls' pleadings, without determining the veracity of such pleadings, directed the revenue authority for mutation and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District, had passed orders of mutation to the extent of Ac.2-00 gts. Ac.1-20 gts., in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. However, the contest of the appellant that there was no partition has not been determined, therefore, the orders in Writ Petitions in any way defeat the rights of the appellant for proper partition. That apart, pleaded that as the final decree has already been passed and to consider the dispute of inter se partition, apart from filing l.A. in the final decree proceedings of OS.No.2'19 of 1982, the suit is perfectly maintainable under Section g of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Court belo\r, to avoid the complications, should have considered and granted interim injunction pending the suit, as prayed for. Hence, sought for intervention.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 has pleaded that the appellant by filing this suit has raised dispute in regard to inter se partition, though the respondents claimed that the property was already partitioned among themselves in the Writ Petitions, the appellant never contested that fact. As per the appellant, in the . final decree, the property devolved on the siblings is of 1 PSK.J & NTR.J Cnra Nos 4?4 and 478 of2022 Ac.14-00 gts., and the aspects that the brothers are not shown as parties and admittedly they had alienated their shares is substantiating the fact of inter se settlement among the sharers' Furthermore, all the parties are in agreement that in the final allotment, the appellant and her siblings got Ac.14.00 gts. The respondent No.'l after settlement got flled writ petition and by the directions, the respective share has been mutated by the revenue authorities in her name. Thereafter, she got fenced her property and even entered into agreements with the third parties. The . course of events are substantiating lhe inter se partition among the appellant and the respondents, however, without there being any tenable ground and for the reasons best known to the appellant' filed the suit to cause loss to her. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

11. The respondent No.2 in person reiterated that there was partition and thb agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6-00 gts.' allotted to them. A public road was laid by the authorities cutting across the share allotted to her, for which she contested and the acquisition proceedings reflect her name and the revenue authority after deleting the extent of road mutated the remaining extent-of Ac.1-20 gts., in her name. Further, pleaded that the contention of I 8 PSK.J & N-TR.J Cnra Nor 47,l aM,178 o12022 l I the appellant against the internal setflement among themselves is unsustainable and after the partition as there was encroachment by the third parties in the portion ailotted to the appeilant and those encroachers also got favourable decree, raised the present dispute to mitigate her loss. As the appellant and respondents have already acted upon the setflement and taken their respective shares, re-opening the issue is impermissible ancl would be detrimental to their interests. Thus, granting any injunction wourd prejudice their interest. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 12 The respondents cited the following authorities: (i) Burugupally Shiva Ran.m Krishna and others vs. M/s. Cyrus lnvestments Limited and othersl; (ii) Arjun Mahto and others vs. Alonda Mahatain and others2 . (iii) Pitambar Kar and others vs. Trilochan Kar and others3

13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, respondent No. j and the respondent No.2, who appeared in person and perused the materials on record. ' 2o I t 1t; eLr o:a 2AIR l97l Pat 20li ' Atn 2ooi o.i tor () PSK,J & N'I'R.J ( ma Nos 474 and 478 of2022

14. The final decree proceedings dated 08.04.2008 in

1.A.No.3833 of 2007 in O.S.No.219 of 1982 are disclosing that the appellant herein filed a Memo showing prefeience of the shares of respondent Nos.12 to 14 (the appellant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) for allotment of their share of land and as it is accepted by other parties, the same was allotted in the plan. However, it was observed that respondent No.2 herein has not stated as to how the plots recommended to the respondent Nos.8 to'14 (all the siblings of appellant) is disadvantageous and it is open to the defdndant Nos.B to 14 to make arrangement between themselves and to subdivide 20% of land allotted |o the share of their father. Further, in the map appended to the final decreerthe allotted Ac.6-00 gts., was not contiguous. Further, the receipt of the Court dated

25.05.2009 is showing entire Ac."l4-00 gts., has been delivered to the appellant and her siblings. However, in the above noted observation in the order is making out that the preferential share of land identified by the appellant has been allotted in the plan, though the delivery receipt is for entire portion. Thus, it is evident that the shares of the appellant and respondents have been allotted together in the plan That being the position, the claim of{he appellant that from the allotted portion, herself and the respondents ]. l0 PSK J & NTR.J ( nra Nos 17l and 478 of2022 got 1/3rd of the land is acceptable. Therefore, the issue of sharing of Ac.6-00 gts. of land is between the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 but not with their brothers. Resultanily, limiting the claim of partitron among the three sisters i.e. appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 is perfecfly justified and excluding their brothers cannot be regarded as non-joinder of necessary parties.

15. By the afore noted facts, allotment of Ac.6-00 gts. in favour of the appellant and respondents in the final decree can be concluded. ln that status, the appellant and respondents became co-owners of the portion of agricultural land allotted to them. The assertion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that after allotmenVafter delivery of property, there was setflemenVpartition among them under a deed. Pertinently, the respondents have not pleaded that the brothers were also part of the setflement. As notecl above, in the final decree, the properties allotted to brothers and sisters with separate demarcation and the fact that the brothers parted with their shares cannot be read as reflection of inter se partition between the appellant and respondents, unless material evidence clinches this fact. I I I / /. / PSK,J & N I"R,J Cma Nos..17,l and 478 of2022

16. Be that as it may, as per the respondents, the internal division/partition/understanding among themselves was under a deed but for the reasons best known to them, failed to bring that document on to record. Thus, the foundational pleading in support of settlement and allotment of shares among the appellant and the respondents has remained unsubstantiated. However, the respondents by citing the mutation proceedings in the revenue record claimed that these entries are evidencing the lnter se partition among the appellant and the respondents is found unacceptable for the reason that the mutation entries were made upon the direction of this Court in the Writ Petitions filed with a plea that partition has been effecte'O among them. Furthermore, it is clear by the record that in the Writ Petition No.'10461 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.1, the appellant has not been shown as party and in the Writ Petition No.27365 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.2, though the appellant is shown as respondent No.14, as she did not come on record through counsel, the order directing the revenue authority to effect mutation cannot be read as the fact of inter se partition has been determined in the Writ Petitions. That apart, at the lnterlocutory stage and in absence of the claimed partition deed, it shall be held that the material on record is not \a I l PS(.J & NTR.J Cma Noi l7l and Jl8 of2022 confirming the fact of inter se partition. ln the absence of the respondents' claimed partition, the appellant and the respondents would stand in the status of joint owners over the schedule property. Joint owner irrespective of the share will have equal right of enjoyment over every portion of the property. For that reason, if one of the joint owners alienates or creates third party interest, it would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the other co-owner, especially when the claim for partition is in deliberation That being so, directing the respondents not to alienate or create third party interests over the suit schedule prope(y to address unnecessary consequences and multiplicity of litigation, is found appropriate. Further, if the respondents proceeded with developmental activities, at a later date may claim equities to the disadvantage to the appellant, if she succeeds in the suit. Thus, weighing the balance of convenience, directing the respondents not to alter the nature of the suit sciedule property would preserve the interests of the parties pending adjudication of the suit, is also found justified

17. For the aforesaid reasons, it shall be held that the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the materials on record in arriving at conclusions. Thus, we are of the considered view that I PSK J & NTR.J Cnra Nos.474 and 478 of2022 intervention in the appeals would be just and proper in the interest of justice

18. Resultantly, for the aforesaid reasons, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed and the respondents are directed not to alienate or create third party interests and shall not alter the nature of the suit schedule property, pending the suit' No order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER { I

1. The Family Court -cum- lV Addl. Distiict and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy.

2. One CC to Sri Thakur Nitender Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M.S. Achyuth Bharatwaj, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to Ms. Bhagya Laxmi Rathor (Party-ln-Person) [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DL ,le I I I HIGH COURT DATED:04/04i2025 COMMON JUDGMEI{T CMA.Nos.474 AND 478 of 2022 ALLOWING THE C.M.As @ *$ 6-'ltW 9 -i.-ia .) x ,4 /,3" ii.tr \r.^ \.q... \e.*:rl 2 5 I'it "-'