LALITHAMMA Vs. R. SEETHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant's counsel and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) In this appeal challenge is made rejection of IA filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC not to alienate the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit and the trial Court having considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash and others Vs. Pulavathi and others reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6160 and also the judgment of N.V. Narendranath Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1970 SC 14 in paragraph 14, comes to the conclusion that daughter can claim partition if her father who is the co-parcener is alive as on 9/9/2005. But contended that her father died in the year 1991. Hence comes to the conclusion that she has no right to claim any joint family property and hence comes to conclusion that suit itself is not maintainable, under the circumstances interim order cannot be granted.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trail Court the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contended that the reasoning assigned by the trail Court is erroneous and she claims the share in the joint family property and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinith Sharma case reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, the said judgment is over- ruled and hence the plaintiff is also entitled for a share and matter has to be adjudicated and if any right is created during the pendency of the suit, it would amounts to multiplicity of proceedings.