KADUPUGOTLA VARALASHMI Vs. VUDAGIRI VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant-third respondent in IA No. 714 of 2006 in OS No.209 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, had preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal, being aggrieved of the order of temporary injunction granted therein.

(2.) The first respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal is the petitioner-plaintiff in the said application. Respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2 - respondents 1 and 2 in the said application. The application was filed by the first respondent-petitioner- plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from making any constructions or changing the nature of the suit land, pending disposal of the suit. The learned Judge in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties and also in the light of the documents marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B5 came fan the conclusion that the first respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioner- plaintiff is entitled for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from making any constructions or changing the nature of the suit schedule property by any means, pending disposal of the suit. Hence, the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

(3.) Smt. Shanti Nilam, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would submit that the appellant-respondent No.3 is the absolute owner of the property by virtue of the registered sale deed in her favour. The learned Counsel would also point out that the learned Judge had not properly appreciated the scope and ambit of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Counsel also pointed out that this a typical case where the bona fide purchaser at least was not put on notice. The learned Counsel also would submit that this Court on 14-9-2006 granted interim suspension and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order to be set-aside. The Counsel also would submit that however the appellant is not making any attempt to alienate the property as such. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.