RAMPATI Vs. RAMPYARI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In suit for partition and permanent injunction, appellant's application for stay has been dismissed by trial court by observing that appellant is not in possession of the back portion of the suit property, as claimed and concludes that appellant has not been able to make out a case for entitlement to any interim injunction

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submit that the appellant's suit is not maintainable as the appellant has not paid the requisite court fee and appellant has approached the court belatedly after three decades and was well aware of the oral family settlement and the share which fell to the appellant has been already given in the oral family settlement to the appellant and, so application for stay has been rightly dismissed by the trial court.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of this case, impugned order is modified to the extent of partly allowing the appellant's application for interim relief by directing that status quo as on 27th April, 2016 be maintained by the respondents during the pendency of the suit. However, there is a rider to it. The rider is that appellant is required to pay the requisite court fee as per their share claimed in the suit property.