POONAM AGARWAL Vs. NEERAJ AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC assailing the order dated 29.10.2013 in I.A.No.737 of 2011 in O.P.No.1153 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from alienating or creating any third party interest - cum -encumbrance in the petition schedule property pending disposal of the O.P. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) THE averments in the petition, in brief, are as follows. The marriage of the petitioner was performed with the first respondent on 31.5.2001 at Tivoli Gardens, Sikh Village, Secunderabad as per Hindu Rites and Custom. Out of the lawful wedlock, the petitioner and first respondent were blessed with three children by name Baby Riya, Baby Kali and Master Kushal. The second respondent is the father -in -law, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are brothers -in -law of the petitioner. The family members of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the first respondent as customary gift during 'Phaldan Ceremony' on the date of engagement. The father of the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of Riya, and Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of Kali. The petitioner's father died on 13.12.1999. The brothers of petitioner could not maintain the business of oil mill and oil trading and they sold away machinery of Jail Hind Oil Mill for Rs.1,86,00,000/ - in June, 2007 and the sale proceeds were distributed among the petitioner, her brothers and sisters. The petitioner got 1/4th amount i.e., Rs.46,50,000/ -. The petitioner provided an amount of Rs.63,50,001/ - to the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who in turn purchased house bearing No.6 -3 -600/A/5, plot No.7, Hill Top Colony, admeasuring 360 Sq.yards in the name of first respondent. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 invested the money in various businesses for better returns. The properties shown in 'A' to 'E' schedule are purchased out of Streedhana amount of the petitioner. At the time of purchase, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 assured the petitioner that they would allot share to the petitioner at the time of partition. In order to extend the business in M/s.Neeraj Pipes Limited (hereafter, NPL), respondent Nos.1 to 4 pressurised the petitioner and her family members to obtain loan and got mortgaged the schedule properties to fifth respondent Bank. At the instigation of third respondent, the first respondent influenced the petitioner to sign on certain papers by coercion. At the instance of third respondent, the first respondent threatened the petitioner to give divorce. A meeting was arranged by the community elders and other family members to settle the issue. In the said meeting, the family members agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner. In the month of June, 2011, the petitioner requested the first respondent for the amounts towards school fee of her children. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house on 24.6.2011. The petitioner was forced to reside at her parents' house along with children. The petitioner came to know that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are trying to create third party interest in respect of petition schedule properties and to deprive the right of the petitioner. The first respondent filed O.P. No.1109 of 2011 on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad. The fifth respondent has no right to claim the properties which are streedhana properties of the petitioner. The first respondent has admitted the ownership of the petitioner over the petition schedule properties. The petitioner is no way responsible for the loan obtained from the fifth respondent. Hence the petition.

(3.) IN the trial court, on behalf of the petitioner, no oral evidence was adduced but Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. On behalf of the fifth respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.