The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of whether the properties were self-acquired or from the ancestral nucleus should be decided after completion of trial in the main suit.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

The appellants in CMA Nos.70 of 2022 and 71 of 2022 are the respondents 5 and 6 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 and petitioners in I.A.No.158 of 2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. Respondent No.1 in CMA Nos.70 of 2022 and 71 of 2022 is the petitioner in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in I.A.No.158 of 2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in CMA Nos.70 of 2022 and 71 of 2022 are the respondents 1 to 4 and 7 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 and respondent Nos.2 to 6 in I.A.No.158 of 2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

As both the appeals are filed against the common order passed in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 and I.A.No.158 of 2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017.

3. The petitioner/ plaintiff/ respondent No.1 filed the suit for preliminary decree for partition of Plaint Schedule Properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the petitioner and for passing of final decree in terms of preliminary decree and put the petitioner in possession of her share.

4. The case of respondents 5 and 6 i.e., appellants in these appeals is that item Nos.19 to 21 of the Plaint Schedule Properties which are covered by registered sale deeds dated 06.08.2011 and 23.04.2011 under documents Nos.7300 of 2011 and 3651 of 2011 respectively are purchased by them in the year 2011 itself i.e., five years before filing the suit. They further contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the item Nos.19 to 21 of Plaint Schedule Properties since the date of its purchase and the petitioner was never in joint and constructive possession of these items of the properties at any time to her knowledge and the petitioner in collusion with other respondents filed the said suit for wrongful gain.

5. I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff to grant Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents and their men from alienating the Petition Schedule Properties.

6. I.A.No.158 of 2020 in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 is filed by the respondents 5 and 6/ appellants to set aside the ex-parte order of Injunction granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.164 of 2017 in O.S.No.16 of 2017 dated 25.01.2017.

7. During the course of enquiry before the trial Court, on behalf of petitioner Ex.A1 to Ex.A121 were marked, on behalf of respondents Ex.B1 to Ex.B53 were marked.

8. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the material on record as well as the contentions of the both the parties, accepted the version of the petitioner/ plaintiff and granted Temporary Injunction against the respondents from alienating the Plaint Schedule Property till the disposal of the main suit and I.A.No.158 of 2020 filed by the respondents 5 and 6 /appellants herein in I.A.No.164 of 2017 is dismissed by the trial Court.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6/ appellants strenuously contended assailing the order of the trial Court that the order is perverse and against the material on record. He further contended that the petitioner/plaintiff had deliberately not arrayed Smt. Cherukuri Lalitha Chengalva i.e., daughter-in-law of the petitioner, knowing fully well that item No.20 of Suit Schedule Properties was alienated by the respondent No.2 and Smt Cherukuri Lalitha Chengalva and further pleaded that the suit for partition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties