N NAVEEN Vs. N NAGARAJA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff had sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from alienating 'D' schedule properties. Defendant No.1 is the father and defendant No.2 is the mother of plaintiff and 3rd defendant.

(2.) AS per plaint averments, there was a compromise decree between first defendant representing himself and plaintiff and third defendant represented by second defendant, their natural guardian, mother. During the year 2002, there was a registered partition deed entered into between parties. According to first defendant, it was to confirm the oral partition that had taken place between first defendant and his brothers. It is the case of plaintiff that father of first defendant had taken 'D' schedule properties which were allotted to shares of plaintiff and third defendant in compromise entered into between parties in O.S.No.3945/1991 and defendants 1 and 2 are about to sell 'D' schedule properties. According to plaintiff, alienation of 'D' schedule properties during pendency of suit would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

(3.) THE parties have not disputed the compromise entered into between them in O.S.No.3945/1991. The plaintiff has disputed registered partition deed entered into between parties on 30.4.2002. According to plaintiff, certain properties which were allotted to shares of plaintiff and third defendant in compromise decree made in O.S.No.3945/1991 have been allotted to share of first defendant in partition deed dated 30.4.2002. Therefore, partition deed dated 30.4.2002 is partially void. The plaintiff has stated so, because he has alienated certain properties which had fallen to his share under registered partition deed dated 30.4.2002.