CHERUKUVADA LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA Vs. PENMETSA SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed questioning the order dtd. 3/2/2023 in I.A.No.637 of 2022 in O.S.No.33 of 2022. By this order impugned, an interim injunction that was granted earlier has been made absolute till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) This Court has heard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as instructed by D.Anil Kumar and Sri M.R.S Srinivas for the respondents.

(3.) Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned senior counsel argued the matter at length. According to him, the doctrine of lis pendens would apply if property is transferred during the pendency of the suit, but he states that something more is necessary for the Court to interfere and to grant an interim injunction. It is his contention that in the case on hand, there is no proof to show that the property which is now claimed and which is injuncted against is joint family property. He also raises a serious issue about the conduct of the party and states that the same should be examined in depth before an injunction is granted since it is an equitable relief. It is his contention that the petitioner in whose favour property was already settled has filed a suit on a ground that there is still some joint more family property left over. He points out that the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed show that the petitioners' father himself has settled the property by way of different documents in favour of the petitioners and others. It is also stated clearly that the petitioners colluded with respondent Nos.2 and 4, received their share of the property either in the name or in the name of the children and are falsely contending that there are joint family properties. It is submitted that this important aspect was totally overlooked. It is also pointed out that the petitioner No.1 is claiming 7/36th share in the property and the party who is in possession of 29/36th share is injuncted against and is prevented from enjoying the property which form the bulk of the property. He also relies on the fact that the trial Court in the course of the order has wrongly noted that when the property is in danger of being 'wasted'. He contends that the issue of wastage etc., would only arise in a receiver application and cannot be considered under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC., while granting an injunction. For the appellants, K.Ravi Prasad Reddy and another v. G.Giridhar and another,2022 (2) ALD 357. is also cited in support of their contentions.