R KRISHNAVENI Vs. GOVINDARAJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S.A.No.269 of 2010 arises against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in O.A. No. 197 of 2010 in C.S.No.185 of 2010. The plaintiff, who was the applicant in the application, is the appellant. The respondents were the defendants in the suit and the respondents in the application. The appellant filed O.A.No.197 of 2010 for interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with or by altering the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) O.S.A.No.270 of 2010 arises against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in A.No.1196 of 2010 in C.S.No.185 of 2010. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit and the first respondent in the application. The first respondent was the first defendant in the suit and the applicant in the application. The second respondent was the second defendant in the suit and the second respondent in the application The first respondent/applicant filed application in O.A. No.1196 of 2010 to vacate the order of ad -interim injunction dated 25.2.2010 granted in O.A.No.197 of 2010 in C.S.NO.185 of 2010.

(3.) According to the appellant, the first respondent is her brother and their father late N.Ramasamy Naidu purchased the suit property on 7.7.1958. The said Ramasamy Naidu put up construction of a house in a portion of the suit property and was residing there with his family. The said Ramasamy Naidu died in the year 1964 leaving behind his wife, Dhanalakshmi Ammal, the appellant and the first respondent as his legal heirs. The said Dhanalakshmi Ammal died in the year 1967 leaving behind the appellant and the first respondent as her legal heirs. Therefore, the suit property devolved upon them equally. The first respondent was residing in the suit property and the request of the appellant for division of the suit property into two equal shares and allot one such share to her was not considered by the first respondent. In the third week of January 2010, the first respondent demolished the existing house and had entered into an agreement with the second respondent for putting up construction of the flats in the suit property. The first respondent also tried to deal with the suit property. Thereafter, the appellant filed the suit in C.S.No.185 of 2010 for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit property and also for permanent injunction. The appellant also filed application in O.A.No.197 of 2010 for interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any way dealing with the suit property pending disposal of the suit. By order dated 25.2.2010, the learned single Judge granted interim injunction for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in A.No.1196 of 2010 to vacate the interim injunction granted in O.A.No.197 of 2010. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides, by common order dated 23.4.2010, permitted the second respondent to complete the construction of all the flats in full and also permitted the second respondent to sell to the third parties, so many flats, whose total constructed area would be 50% or less than 50% of the total constructed area in the suit property in entirety. The learned single Judge also granted interim injunction restraining the second respondent from alienating or encumbering or dealing with more than 50% of the undivided share of land in the suit property. Aggrieved over the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has filed the above two appeals.