A temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC requires the court to carefully analyze pleadings and documents on record, including marking them, before granting the relief.

The Court made the following judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 05.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.246 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

2. The respondents herein / plaintiffs filed the said suit against the appellants / defendants seeking the following reliefs:

a) for passing of preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule properties into 2 equal shares and allot one share each to the plaintiffs and defendants i.e., half share to plaintiffs 4 and 5 in the half share of plaintiffs half share and 1/3^rd share each to plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the remaining half share of plaintiffs half share and 1/7^th share each to defendants 1 to 7 in the remaining half share of defendants in the plaint schedule properties with regard to good and bad qualities and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs.

b) for passing of final decree in terms of preliminary decree;

c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their legal heirs from alienating or create any encumbrances like sale, gift, mortgage etc., or transferring the suit property in any manner in favour of anybody till the disposal of the suit;

d) to award costs;

e) and to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. It is the case of the respondents / plaintiffs that the appellants / defendants are their close relatives, that some of the plaint schedule properties belonged to one Mr.Bala Linga Murthy Reddy, who had two sons viz., Nagarlapati Nagireddy and Lingamurthy Reddy and both of them died long back. Mr.Nagarlapati Nagi Reddy married one Venkata Subbamma after the death of his first wife Smt.Subbamma, that the said Venkata Subbamma is no more and the first wife of Nagarlpati Nagireddy had only one daughter by name Lingamma and she also died. The said Lingamma had one daughter and one son viz., K.Subba Rathnamma (4^th plaintiff) and D.Sekhara Reddy (5^th plaintiff) and the second wife of Nagarlapati Nagireddy i.e., Venkata Subbamma had three daughters viz., Dusani Sivamma (first plaintiff), Seelam Saraswathi (second plaintiff) and Geereddy Ammani @ Lakshmi (third plaintiff). It is the further case of the plaintiffs that during the life time of the said Nagarlapati Nagireddy and Nagarlapati Linga Murthy Reddy, they purchased some of the plaint schedule properties with the joint nucleus funds of other joint family properties and all the plaint schedule properties are construed as joint family properties and the plaintiffs and the defendants are having shares in the plaint schedule properties as per Law, being co-parceners. It is also their case that in view of the death of Mr.Nagarlapati Nagi Reddy, Nagarlapati Linga Murthy Reddy as also his son Mr.Siva Reddy, the defendants who are the legal heirs of the said Siva Reddy are managing the joint family plaint schedule properties on behalf of them and also on behalf of the plaintiffs and sharing the income to the plaintiffs i.e., legal heirs of the deceased Nagarlapati Nagi Reddy as per the Law deriving from the plaint schedule properties till one year prior to filing of the suit and as the defendants stopped sharing the income to the respondents / plaintiffs, they got issued a legal notice and thereafter filed the suit.

4. The appellant No.3 / defendant No.3 filed a detailed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties, but denying that the plaint sched