Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHALLA GUNARANJAN
M.K. Jagannatha Rao, S/O M.K. Gopal Rao – Appellant
Versus
M.K. Kusuma Bai Kurnool, W/o M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal is preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff in rejecting I.A.No.74 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed under Order XXXIV Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction restraining 5th respondent/ 5th defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, by order, dated 03.10.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Plaintiff, husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4 are brothers and 5th defendant being subsequent purchaser from 3rd defendant are contesting O.S.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, instituted for partition and separate possession. It is claimed that initially suit schedule property belonged to one Sri Gundu Rao, grandfather of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. He was succeeded by three sons, and later one of the son settled and his share was taken out of joint family thereby only two sons viz., M. K.Gopala Rao and M.K. Krishna Murthy Rao continued to hol
Court affirmed that in interlocutory applications for injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience, reinforcing the discretion of trial courts in such matters....
The court upheld the 1st Appellate Court's grant of temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's possession of the property pending adjudication, affirming that appellate courts focus on preservin....
A party cannot claim an injunction against the real owner of property, and the classification of property as ancestral or self-acquired must await trial.
In a joint family property, a permanent injunction against a co-owner is unjustified unless exclusive possession can be established.
Temporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, ensuring parties' rights are preserved during litigation.
The legal point established is that a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction may not be rejected solely on the basis of a partition decree, and parties may seek legal remedies for intervening pr....
Court must grant injunction to protect possession when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm are established.
Injunctions cannot be granted against co-owners in partition suits; however, maintaining Status-Quo is reasonable to prevent interference during ongoing disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
