Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA
Gogu Chepuru Vasundhara – Appellant
Versus
Chepuru Rama Devi – Respondent
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 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....
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
