A temporary injunction cannot be granted in a case arising between co-owners of property unless there is an invasion of a right of a co-owner by being excluded or ousted from possession.

( 1 ) CIVIL Miscellaneous Appeal no. 615 of 1976 is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1976 of the Subordinate Judge s Court, chittoor, in I. A. No. 440 of 1976 in o. S. No. 45 of 1976.

( 2 ) CIVIL Miscellaneous Appeal No. 146 of 1977 is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1976 made in I. A. No. 601 of 1976 in O. S. No. 44 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s court, Chittoor.

( 3 ) BOTH parties in the above two i. As. , filed before the Court below a joint memo, requesting the Court to have them tried together and disposed of by a common order as the parties in both the petitions are the same, the properties covered by the suits giving rise to the above interlocutory applications are the same and the points involved in both the suits also are one and the same. In view of this joint memo, both the i. As. , were tried together and disposed of by the common order dated 20th september, 1976 by the Subordinate judge, Chittoor.

( 4 ) THE facts admitted or at any rate not disputed in this case giving rise to the aforesaid two appeals are that the suit properties mentioned in the plaint schedules in both the suits belonged to one Velkur Venkata Reddy. He died on 12th April, 1976 issueless in the christian Medical College Hospital, vellore.

( 5 ) PADMAVATHAMMA, his widow, filed a suit, O. S No. 20 of 1976 before the district Court, Chittoor, against venkata Reddy s sister and also against the daughter of Venkata Reddy s another sister. That suit was instituted for a declaration of the plaintiff s title and for injunction. Pending disposal of that suit I. A. No. 215 of 1976 was filed by padmavathamma for grant of an interim injunction and the same was granted. That suit was transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court Chittoor, and renumbered as O. S. No. 44 of 1976 and the I. A. was renumbered as I. A. No 601 of 1976. The case of Padmavathamma in that suit was that she being the widow of Venkata Reddy was entitled for declaration of her title to the property in question. She obtained the interim injunction on the basis of the allegations that she succeeded to the plaint Schedule properties on the death of her husband and that she has been in possession of the properties and that the respondents have no right in the properties and that they were trying to interfere with her possession and therefore she is entitled for the interim injunction. The 1st respondent in that i. A. was the widowed sister of the plaintiff s husband and the 2nd respondent was his sister s daughter. It is their case that as Padmavathamma did not have any issues from her husband, he took the 2nd respondent to his house when she was 3 or 4 years old and brought her up in his house. Prior to his death, Venkata Reddy on 9th April, 1976 while he was in the hospital and while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a will bequeathing 1/3rd share to Padmavathamma and 1/3rd share each to the respondents. The 1st respondent and Padmavathamma were only having life interest in the properties and after their demise according to the terms of the will their shares also should go to the 2nd respondent. It is their further case that they were in possession and enjoyment of the entire properties of Venkata Reddy and that the petitioner Padmavathamma was tryinig to disturb their possession. Padmavathamma having known about the execution of the last will and testament of Venkata Reddy deliberately omitted to mention about the same. The respondents further stated that they filed a suit for partition of the properties and tharefor a the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner padmavathamma may be vacated and temporary injunction may be given in their favour restraining Padmavathamma from interfering with their possession. The Court below held that padmavathamma was not entitled to the temporary injunction and accordingly vacated the interim injunction granted in her favour.

( 6 ) WE shall refer to Padmavath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document