IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Gogu Chepuru Vasundhara - Appellant
Vs.
Chepuru Rama Devi - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.18 and 20 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2025
JUDGMENT :
P. Sree Sudha, J.
C.M.A.No.18 of 2025 is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.412 of 2022 (O.S.No.33 of 2021 (old)) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda.
2. C.M.A.No.20 of 2025 is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022 (O.S.No.33 of 2021 (old)) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda
3. Appellants herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, against the respondents for appointment of receiver to manage and collect rents from the tenants/kouldars of the plaint schedule-1(A, B and C), 2 (A, B and C)(immovable properties) and also to control the schedule-3 (movable properties). The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material on record dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants have preferred C.M.A.No.18 of 2025.
4. Appellants herein have also filed an application vide I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, against the respondents, for grant of ad-injunction restraining the respondents not to alienate the suit schedule properties to third parties. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, partly allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants have preferred C.M.A.No.20 of 2025.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants stated that appellants herein are the natural daughters of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is their elder sister. Respondent No.1 and late Ayodhya Ramaiah had four daughters and one son by name Harikiran. While Harikiran was pursuing Engineering Degree, died in a road accident occurred on 07.07.1999 and Ayodhya Ramaiah had also died intestate on 19.03.2020. Thereafter, appellants and respondents No.1 and 2 constituted a joint family of Ayodhya Ramaiah, as such appellants herein have filed a suit vide O.S.No.412 of 2022, for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share. Appellants after the death of their father, requested their mother and elder sister, who are respondents No.1 and 2, for partition of the joint family properties, since the respondents No.1 and 2 are not disclosing the income/rents being collected on the suit schedule properties. Respondent No.2 has taken the respondent No.1 completely under her control and trying to grab the joint family properties. As there is no positive response from respondent No.2, appellants issued legal notice on 10.12.2020 and respondents No.1 and 2 gave reply notice on 24.12.2020, by disputing certain properties and by admitting certain properties.
6. It is also stated that Late Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1 have adopted the son of respondent No.2, who is respondent No.3 herein, as their son on 22.12.1999 and they have executed and registered the adoption deed on 09.08.2001, hence he is also entitled for equal share and requested the appellants to wait till the first death anniversary of their father. In the meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a Caveat Petition against the appellants herein on 07.01.2021. Appellants have issued reply notice on 12.02.2021, denying the adoption of respondent No.3 by Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1, and demanded for alleged copy of the adoption deed, but it was not furnished to them. When respondents No.2 and 3 were trying to alienate the properties, appellants have filed the suit vide O.S.No.33 of 2021 on 20.04.2021, for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants further stated that there are only five coparceners i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 and respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 was already getting monthly pension of around Rs.70,000/- and therefore, she was not dependent on anybody. Respondent No.1 never shared any information as to the expenditure incurred or the incomes derived from the properties as rents, lease amounts, etc., and also the amounts received on account of Gratui
The appointment of a receiver requires evidence of mismanagement, and injunctions can be granted to protect joint family properties during pending litigation.
Ownership disputes must be resolved through evidence, and the court cannot reject a plaint in part.
The appointment of a receiver in a partition suit is justified when it serves to protect joint property and prevent dissipation during ongoing legal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove the nucleus with which property could be acquired under Hindu Law, the application of the principle of lis pendens, and the discr....
Injunction - Mere occupation of a portion or entire joint family property by one co-owner does not amount to ouster of other co-owner from said property.
The court upheld the trial court's order for a temporary injunction, emphasizing that issues of joint family property versus self-acquisition necessitate thorough examination during trial.
The court reaffirmed the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the potential for irreparable harm in disput....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.