L.A. HEMA REDDY AND SRI JAYARAMA REDDY Vs. SMT. A. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O. LATE LUKKU ABBAIAH, W/O. SRINIVASA REDDY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS , who are Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S 684/2010, pending on the file of Fast Track Court - II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, instituted by Respondents 1 to 5/Plaintiffs, have questioned in this appeal, an order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.I, whereby and whereunder, the Appellants were restrained from alienating tilt the disposal of the suit, the plaint schedule properties. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in the suit.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs and the Defendants are the children of late Lakkur Abbaiah and his wife Smt. Seethamma. The suit instituted is for passing judgment and decree of partition, by re -opening an earlier partition and to put the Plaintiffs in separate possession of their legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties and to restrain the Defendants by perpetual injunction from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property of the Plaintiffs. Lakkur Abbaiah died on 17.09.1987 and his wife Seethamma died on 12.07.1998. The Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant are the daughters and the Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Lakkur Abbaiah and Seethamma. According to the Plaintiffs, on account of misrepresentation and fraudulent acts on the part of the Defendants, a partition deed has illegally come into existence on 29.05.2002 and that, there is no valid consent i.e., to the said partition, which according to them, was not accepted and so also not acted upon. According to the Plaintiff, the partition is wholly inequitable and unequal. Along with the suit, I.A.I was filed to pass an order of temporary injunction, to restrain the Defendants from alienating the plaint schedule properties.

(3.) THE Trial Court having noticed the registered partition deed dated 29.05.2002 between the parties, observing that, the same is unequal and the partition got affected being not legal and justifiable, observing that there is triable issue to be decided after full -fledged trial, held that the Plaintiffs have made out prima facie case. The Trial Court has held that the contentions taken by the Plaintiffs in the writ petition about the partition does not stop them from agitating their legitimate rights and that, if the suit property is not kept intact, it leads to violation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and there would be complexity and multiplicity of litigation amongst the parties, which would also result in a strained relationship of brothers and sisters. The Trial Court has held that, the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and they would suffer loss and prejudice if an order of injunction is not granted. As a result of such findings I.A.I was allowed.