Co-owners maintain rights to possession and enjoyment, where disputes necessitate interim injunctions to uphold joint ownership principles until resolution.

COMMON JUDGMENT

: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)

We have heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri T.Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants and petitioners in C.M.A.Nos.225, 226 and 287 of 2023 and C.R.P.No.1478 of 2023 and respondents in C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023; Sri H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Sri S.Amarendar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the respondent No.1 and petitioner in C.M.A.Nos.225, 226 and 287 of 2023 and C.R.P.No.1645 of 2023 and respondent in C.R.P.No.1478 of 2023.

2. As the suit schedule properties, issues and the reliefs sought in the impugned orders are intertwined, the civil miscellaneous appeals and the civil revision petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 (wife and her father) and respondent No.1/plaintiff (husband) in C.M.A.Nos.225 and 226 of 2023 are hereinafter be referred as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and plaintiff respectively as per the array in O.S.No.9 of 2022.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff/P.Shiva Shanker Reddy/husband and the defendant No.1/B.Deepthi Chandrika/wife are legally wedded couple. However, due to matrimonial discord, the husband filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2022 seeking declaration of title over the House bearing No.10-50 in Plot No.114, admeasuring 213.89 square yards, with construction of three floors plus pent house having six portions and a single room, situated in Sy.Nos.9, 10, 11, 31 and 32, at Block No.9, Gayathri Nagar, Jillelaguda, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (suit ‘A’ schedule property) and House bearing No.14-264/A/3, in Plot No.11, admeasuring 250.55 square yards with construction of three floors plus pent house having eight portions, situated in Survey No.352/A, at Housing Board Colony, Nagarkurnool Revenue Mandal, (suit ’B’ schedule property) and permanent injunction against the wife and her father and other defendants and also to direct the defendants to pay rents to him.

5. The plaintiff/husband’s case is that suit schedule ‘A’ property was purchased under registered sale deed showing himself and defendant No.1-wife as vendees and the suit schedule ‘B’ property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1/wife as vendee, albeit the sale consideration was paid from his savings and by availing home loan and the defendant No.1-wife being home maker has no other source of income itself is evidencing the fact that the sale consideration was paid by him, nominally in the name of defendant No.1-wife and he is the de jure owner of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. As such, he is entitled for declaration and rents and the defendant No.1-wife and her father/defendant No.2 shall not interfere with his possession. Therefore, filed I.A.No.35 of 2022 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.1-wife, from alienating suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties; I.A.No.36 of 2022 restraining the wife/defendant No.1 and her father/defendant No.2 from interfering into his possession of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and I.A.No.37 of 2022 to direct the tenants/defendant Nos.3 to 14 for depositing the rents of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties, pending the suit.

6. On the other hand, the defendant No.1-wife filed the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2023 seeking permanent injunction against her husband and father-in-law pleading that she had purchased the house property (which is suit ‘B’ schedule property in O.S.No.9 of 2022) vide registered sale deed and is in peaceful possession of the same. Further claimed that the property was purchased with the help of her father particularly for her and her dau