Telangana High Court
CMA/932/2012 of Smt. Karunashree, Vs S.Sreenivasulu on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.M.A.No.932 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.383 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 dated 5.9.2012 on the
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.
C.M.A.No.932 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the orderpassed in I.A.No.383 of 2011 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 dated 5.9.2012 onthe file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur in refusing to grantinterim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suitschedule property.
According to the appellant, the appellant and respondents areHindu undivided family members and they are coparceners andnumber of properties are acquired out of joint family funds in the nameof one or other members of coparcenery and therefore the suitschedule properties are joint family properties and as the respondentsrefused for partition of the properties, she filed the suit O.S.No.53 of2011 for partition and separate possession of the suit scheduleproperties and along with the suit, she filed the present I.A.No.383 of2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking temporary injunctionrestraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the petitionschedule properties pending disposal of the suit. The Court below byorder dated 5.9.2012 dismissed the said I.A. Hence, this CMA.
Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerial available on record.
The Court below while dismissing the application by impugnedorder held that the petitioner failed to prove prima facie case that all theplaint schedule properties were purchased from out of the joint familyfunds and all the properties have been purchased in individual namesand they are self-acquired properties. We are of the view that all theseissues are to be raised in the main suit. Further, any alienation of theproperty is hit by principle of lis-pendency under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, we do not see any error in the impugnedorder calling interference of this Court. Accordingly, the CMA is dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs.
______________V.ESWARAIAH, J
Date: 28.12.2012DA
_____________K.G.SHANKAR, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
C.M.A.No.932 of 2012
Date: 28.12.2012
Between:
Smt.Karunashree
And
.. Appellant
S.Sreenivasulu and others.
.. Respondents