Point of Law: Order XXXIX Rule 1A C.P.C., also covers issues relating to passing of an Order restraining the alienation pending suit.

ORDER :

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1) The Appellants, who are the Plaintiffs, filed O.S. No.23 of 2021 seeking the following reliefs:-

i. “to direct the partition of the plaint schedule mentioned property in 8 equal shares with regard to good and bad and allot one such share each to the plaintiffs;

ii. to put the separate possession of respective shares to the plaintiffs;

iii. to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit;

iv. to grant such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case/suit”.

2. Pending Suit, I.A. No. 387 of 2021 came to be filed for an exparte interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from alienating the Plaint Schedule Properties to third parties till disposal of the Suit.

3. The averments in the interlocutory application would show that, one Sri.Chinthakunta Munaiah Naidu, was married to one C.Chennamma, who is the Respondent No. 1 herein. They are blessed with four Sons [Plaintiffs] and three Daughters [Respondent No. 2 to 4]. Their elder son C.Muniswamy Naidu, who is the husband of Respondent No.5 and father of Respondent No. 6, died on 27.07.2005.

4. It is said that, the parties to the lis are members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were doing cultivation and also business and the profits derived from it were entrusted to C. Muniswamy Naidu, who purchased the properties in his name.

5. It is said that, at the time of demise of C. Muniswamy Naidu, Respondent No. 6 was aged about 16 years. While performing the marriage of Respondent No. 6, the Appellants have incurred huge expenses. It is said that, though the Plaint Schedule Properties are in possession of joint family, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not coming forward and cooperate in filing suit against Respondent No. 5 and 6, but, willing to partition the Plaint Schedule Properties. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are proclaiming that C.Muniswamy Naidu, purchased the properties out of his own funds, but it is said that he has no individual capacity to purchase those properties.

6. As things stood thus, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are said to have forged the signatures of Appellant No. 1 on promissory notes valued at Rs.47,10,000/- and Rs.22,00,000/- and filed two Suits vide O.S. No. 8505 of 2019 and O.S. No. 8619 of 2019 on the file of XVI City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. However, the said Suits were withdrawn, on 27.11.2020, by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, without any intimation, but on coming to know that the Appellant No.1 filed vakalatnama in the said Suits. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are blackmailing and creating troubles to the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to grab the properties.

7. It is further said that, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed O.S. No.259 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for partition of the properties in Survey Nos. 29, 30, 31, 47/2, 48, 49, 50/1, 50/2 and 52/4, which were subsequently sub-divided as 29/B, 30-B, 31-B, 48-C, 49-A, 50/1-C, 50/2C and 50/4-C. However, the said Suit was also withdrawn at the summons stage without any proper intimation.

8. It is said that, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/8th share each and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to 1/8th share in the Plaint Schedule Properties. The Appellants and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are said to have approached Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties into eight equal shares and allot one such share to each of them, but, however, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not cooperating, resulting in Appellants filing a Suit for partition and separate possession of the Plaint Schedule Properties by dividing it into eight equal shares and to allot one such share to each of them. Having regard to prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Appellants sought for an injunction.

9. A counter came to be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 separately, disputing the averments m