K. Subbarayudu Naidu vs K. Subba Naidu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(AP) 1593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
K. Subbarayudu Naidu and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
K. Subba Naidu and Ors. – Respondents
IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023 in AS No. 526 of 2011
Decided On : 22-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Vajjhaia Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Umesh Chandra, PVG

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 - Temporary injunction - Suit for partition - Respondents sought to restrain appellants from interfering with rice mills operation during appeal against partition decree - Court found no exclusive possession or ouster of co-owners, hence, interim injunction not warranted - Legal principles established through precedent strengthen the ruling that joint possession does not equate to exclusion. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
Respondents filed suit for partition of joint family properties including rice mills, which were contested by appellants claiming exclusive rights based on prior arrangements and ongoing possession. Court records indicated longstanding joint possession among all parties post-partition.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that mere occupation by one co-owner does not amount to ouster or justification for granting an injunction against another co-owner, emphasizing joint ownership rights.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of granting injunctions between co-owners in a partition suit and the implications of alleged exclusive possession on such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that in joint family properties, one party's possession does not displace the rights of others, and injunctions cannot be granted in favor of one co-owner against another without clear evidence of ouster.

Result: Applications for temporary injunction dismissed; the stay on final decree not extended.

Table of Content
1. challenge to a partition suit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal representatives brought on record. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding injunction and co-ownership. (Para 7 , 8)
4. historical context of joint family properties. (Para 9 , 10)
5. legal principles on co-owner possession and injunction. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
6. decision on injunction application. (Para 15)

ORDER :

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

1. A.S. No. 526 of 2021 is preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2011 passed in Original Suit No. 17 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

2. 1st respondent in the A.S. filed the aforesaid suit against appellants in the A.S., seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to him. Vide the Judgment dated 28.03.2011, the trial Court decreed the suit, passing a preliminary decree, declaring that 1st respondent/plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

3. In the Appeal Suit, vide Order dated 25.08.2011 in A.S.M.P. No. 1830 of 2011, this Court granted stay of passing of final decree alone, by observing that all other proceedings may go on.

4. During pendency of the A.S., appellant No. 1 and sole respondent died. Appellants 4 to 6 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased appellant No. 1, vide Order dated 24.03.2023 in I.A. No. 4 of 2022. Respondents 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased respondent, vide Order dated 24.03.2023 in I.A. No. 6 of 2022.

5. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as arrayed in the Appeal Suit.

6. During pendency of the appeal, appellants filed I.A. No. 1 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and operation of two rice mills viz. Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill and Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill and Flour Mill of the plaint schedule properties situated in Gunthapalli village, Badvel mandal, YSR Kadapa district, pending disposal of the Appeal Suit. By an Order dated 12.04.2023, this Court passed an order observing that all the three ingredients to grant temporary injunction were found and granted interim injunction restraining 3rd respondent from interfering with the management of the two rice mills until further orders, and ordered urgent notice to the respondents. Thereafter, respondents filed I.A. No. 2 of 2023 praying to vacate the temporary injunction granted on 12.04.2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2023.

7. Learned senior counsel Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu appearing for the appellants submits that there was a family partition which was reduced into writing between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the plaint schedule properties, and the same was accepted by all the parties. He further submits that Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill and Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill and Flour Mill are in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of appellants even long prior to filing of the suit and the appellants are operating both the rice mills, by obtaining license from competent authorities and paying electricity consumption charges, and while so, respondent No. 3, who came on record after death of original respondent, with the aid of anti-social elements, is interfering with their possession and not permitting them to operate the rice mills. He submits that the appellants satisfy all the three ingredients essential for grant of temporary injunction, and hence, the petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon decisions in (i) Tanusree Basu & others v. Ishani Prasad Basu & others (2008) 4 SCC 791 and (ii) Rachamadugu Sridevi v. Sanka Anjaneyulu 2017 LawSuit (Hyd) 183.

8. On the other hand, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents contended that the respondents are co-owners of the aforesaid properties; that it is settled principle of law that in a suit for partition, one cannot seek injunction a