THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.7 of 2019 and CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.61 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are directed against orders passed in interim applications in a same suit, as such they are being dealt with by way of this common judgment.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 17.12.2018 in I.A.No.2055 of 2017 in O.S.No.76 of 1970 and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order dated 17.12.2018 in I.A.No.2056 of 2017 in O.S.No.76 of 1970. The said O.S.No.76 of 1970 is on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Court below’). I.A.No.2055 of 2017 was filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking impleadment of the petitioners therein in the main suit and I.A.No.2056 of 2017 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to grant injunction. The Court below has dismissed I.A.No.2055 of 2017 and consequently, CMA_61_2019 dismissed I.A.No.2056 of 2017 aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are preferred by the petitioner No.2 in both the I.As.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the Civil Revision Petition and impugned implead application.

4. It is the case of the revision petitioner/appellant/petitioner No.2/proposed defendants that petitioners are daughters of respondent No.1/plaintiff. Respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.76 of 1970 for declaration that he is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the joint family properties and for partition of schedule I and II into three equal shares and to allot one share to him. During the pendency of the suit, a memorandum of compromise was entered in between all the parties to the suit and in terms of said compromise a preliminary decree dated 24.04.1986 was passed by the Court below. The details of the list of properties annexed to the preliminary decree were agreed to be divided between the parties. As per clause 3 of the Memorandum of Compromise (for short ‘MOC’), there shall be no physical division of the properties CMA_61_2019 during the life time of respondent No.2 herein, as the parties agreed to postpone it till discharge of all liabilities. As per clause 8 of MOC, two daughters, petitioners/proposed defendants herein shall be entitled to equal shares from out of the share allotted to their father i.e., respondent No.1 herein. As on the date of entering into the MOC and as on the date of the preliminary decree of partition dated 24.04.1986 only the male members were recognized as coparceners in the joint Hindu Undivided Family. Subsequently, after death of respondent No.2, the preliminary decree dated 24.04.1986 was amended to reflect the revised shares of respondent No.3 herein. While so, on 05.05.1988, respondent No.3 also expired and a family agreement of memorandum was entered between the parties on 05.05.1999. Further, in respect of Dhanraj Mahal building on 15.08.1999 a supplementary memorandum of family agreement was entered in between parties for division of vacant flats in Dhanraj Mahal and as a result of said agreement, seven flats came to the share of respondent No.1 herein.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners/proposed defendants that on 25.08.1999, a memorandum of confirmation and family CMA_61_2019 agreement was entered in between respondent No.1 and the petitioners/proposed defendants and it was declared and confirmed between the parties as to how the said seven flats falling to the share of respondent No.1 under preliminary partition decree read with supplementary memorandum dated 15.08.1999 were to be dealt with. As per said memorandum of confirmation dated 25.08.1999, out of seven flats in Dhanraj Mahal, four flats i.e., flat Nos.27/27A, 29, 31 and 33 in Block E shall continue to ex