SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(AP) 889

2006 (6) ALT 496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J.
Lavu Sri Krishna Rao and others - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Moturi Nagendra Rao - Respondent
Appeal No. 517 of 1999
Decided on 8-8-2006.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. Rama Gopal, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Counsel for the Respondent.

Headnote:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Or7, Rule 7 - “Relief not pleaded in plaint cannot be granted” - Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction - Trial Court while dismissing suit for permanent injunction passed preliminary decree for partition and separate possession for half share in suit property and allotting remaining half to 4th defendant

       Appellants/defendants contend that in absence of any pleading or any issue Court cannot pass preliminary decree for partition - Respondent/plaintiff contends that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings trial Court granted relief of partition basing on evidence

       Relief granted must be founded on pleadings and Court is not at liberty to grant relief not pleaded in plaint or that does not follow naturally from claim as stated in plaint - Under guise of provisions of Or7, R7 relief larger than one claimed by plaintiff in suit cannot be granted - Court may look into aspect of title incidentally while considering grant of relief of injunction - Deciding contentious questions of title on face of rival and opposite claims in absence of necessary pleadings and issues and evidence, fixing shares among some parties in respect of suit property and granting decree for partition, which is not prayed for by either parties - Unwarranted and impermissible under law - Judgment and decree of trial Court, set aside

JUDGMENT

This is appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24-3-1998 in O.S.No.28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, wherein the trial Court, while dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction granted alternatively preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and allotted the remaining half share to the 4th defendant and allowing the plaintiff to be in possession of three rooms and restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the same till a final decree is drawn and the plaintiff is allotted his specific half share.

2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.28 of 1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. The respondent herein filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties comprising 435.6 square yards of site in Survey No. 125/16 and six rooms thereon situate in Aganampudi village, Gajuwaka Mandal.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Pattabhi Ramaiah from whom it was purchased by Lavu Venkata Rama Rao under registered sale deed dated 2-4-1980 and the plaintiff after completing his graduation in Medicine took the suit property on lease from L.Venkata Rama Rao under lease deed dated 31-1-1988 and improved the same and opened a Clinic-cum-Nursing Home in five out of the six rooms and opened a Pharmaceutical shop in the sixth room in 1988. After the death of L.V. Rama Rao on -16-11-1988, his wife Amaravathi succeeded to his estate including the plaint schedule property and while leaving for her native place in Krishna district after the death of her husband, she sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 85,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 16-02-1989 and ever since, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property in his own right. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant No.4 is wife of defendant NO.3. L.V. Rama Rao was also one of the sons of defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 got issued a registered notice dated 26-3-1989 alleging that the suit property was purchased by defendant No.3, but, kept in the name of L.V. Rama Rao, benami, that it is joint family property of defendant No.3 and his sons and on the death of L. V. Rama Rao; his 1/5th share devolved on his mother Subbamma defendant No.4 and also demanding payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. Plaintiff got issued a reply notice. The plaintiff alleges that on 17-5-1989, he left for his native place Eluru and when he returned on 19-5-1989, he found that all .the furniture and wherewithal in his Nursing Home were found thrown on the street and the plaintiff learnt that defendants 1 and 2 have forcibly entered the nursing home and the medical shop with rowdy elements and caused damage to .the premises and forcibly removed the inpatients. Smt. Shaik Pyari, a female nurse working in the clinic gave a report to the Gajuwaka police, who registered a case in Crime No.335 of 1989 and later arrested defendant NO.1 the plaintiff complains that on release from jail, defendant No.1 along with defendant NO.2 and others tried to forcibly occupy the plaint schedule property. He, therefore, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining .the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, wherein he has been running a nursing home.

4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and defendants 2 to 4 adopted the same.

5. Defendant NO.1 denied the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to the joint family of defendant No.3 and his sons defendants 1, 2 and deceased L. Venkata Rama Rao having been purchased with the joint family assets, but, however, the sale deed was obtained in the






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top