Telangana High Court
CRP/3999/2010 of Katha Laxminivas Reddy Vs Katha Venkata Rami Reddy on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3999 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.168 of 2006 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the respondent, his paternal uncle, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of four items of the suit
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3999 of2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S.No.168 of 2006 in the Court of theJunior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the respondent, his paternaluncle, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of four itemsof the suit schedule property. He has also filed I.A.No.496 of 2006under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The trial Court allowed theI.A. through order, dated 04.01.2007. Aggrieved thereby, therespondent filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2008 in the Court of the SeniorCivil Judge, Allagadda. The lower appellate Court partly allowedthe C.M.A. on 08.03.2010 and vacated the injunction in respect ofitem Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule. This revision is filed againstthe orders passed by the lower appellate Court.
Heard Sri Soma Konda Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for therespondent.It is no doubt true that the lower appellate Court hadassigned certain reasons while sustaining the order of temporaryinjunction in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 and vacating it in respectof item Nos.1 and 2. The fact, however, remains that in respect ofthe very property mentioned in item Nos.1 and 2 of the presentsuit schedule, this Court passed an order of status quo inS.A.No.1133 of 2009. That Second Appeal pertains to litigationbetween K.Narayan Reddy, father of the petitioner on the one handand daughters of the respondent herein on the other.
When the parties are either same or claiming through samesource of title, it becomes essential to ensure consistency.
Hence, the civil revision petition is partly allowed modifyingthe order under C.M.A.No.7 of 2008 to the effect that status quoobtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties in respectof item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule. There shall be no orderas to costs.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:30.12.2010.
kdl