V DASHARADA AND ORS Vs. V RAMBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants in partition suit O.S. No. 220 of 2015 and respondents in injunction petition not to alienate sought in I.A. No. 596 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Impugning the order granting injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the plaint A schedule properties consisting of 7 items total Ac. 18-19' gts of Dorepally village and plaint B schedule property consisting of 1 item of two mulgies and residential house at Sri Ram Nagar, Nalgonda Town, the present CMA is maintained.

(2.) In O.S. No. 220 of 2015, the plaintiff sought ⅙th share saying defendant Nos. 1 to 5 each entitled to ⅙th share and that they all members of the joint family. The 7th defendant is the husband of the 4th defendant and 8th defendant even no way concerned with the family of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7. It is the further say that 1st defendant is their family manager and plaintiff working as Government employee for past 20 years and took the responsibility of performing marriages of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 by spending amounts by contributing his salary earnings all these years and defendant No. 1 is managing the family affairs, purchased viz., item No. 1 Ac. 00 gts in S. No. 40/U1 in his name, another Ac. 2-00 gts item No. 2 in S. No. 40/U1 in the name of 7th defendant, also purchased Ac. 5-13 gts in S. No. 40/1 item No. 3 in the name of 4th defendant, also purchased Ac. 1-35 gts in S. No. 41/1 item No. 4 also in the name of 4th defendant, also purchased Ac. 2-25' gts in S. No. 37/1 item No. 5 also in the name of 4th defendant, also purchased Ac. 2-13 gts in S. No. 37A2/1 item No. 6 in the name of 6th defendant and also purchased Ac.2-13 gts in S. No. 37E item No. 7 in the name of 3rd defendant and also acquired a residential house with two mulgies in plaint B schedule property having constructed that stands in his name and all these are joint family properties for which plaintiff also contributed along with the 1st defendant even purchased in the name of one or other of the family members and thereby they all i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to ⅙th share each in the properties and the same is liable for partition and for their non-cooperation in constraining to file suit to pass preliminary decree from the cause of action alleged therefrom demands for partition and non-cooperation with the averments and by saying the defendants pending suit are trying to alienate the properties in the name of 3rd parties, which may creep in third party interest and complications thereby necessary to grant temporary injunction restraining from alienation pending disposal of the suit sought the temporary injunction in I.A. No. 596 of 2015 supra.

(3.) The counter filed in opposing the injunction petition by the defendants is with the say that none of the properties are part and parcel of joint family and they filed their written statement which is to be read as part of the counter and the petition for injunction not to alienate is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed and the written statement averments is with the contest of them that the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini for none of the properties are partiable and the plaintiff came to the Court by suppression of material facts, but for relationship between the parties, the other averments are baseless and unsustainable. The plaintiff was educated with the earnings of the 1st defendant by spending huge amounts including for his engineering course after polytechnic by educating at Hyderabad. The plaintiff contributed his salary for the family development and for the marriages of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 or for purchase of properties are untrue and these are the exclusive properties of respective defendants and D.7 is unnecessarily made as party to the suit. Neither plaintiff nor other defendants can lay any claim over the respective properties of the 1st defendant or other respective defendants and the suit for partition is misconceived for plaintiff not entitled to any relief. The 1st defendant was doing kirana business and it is his hard earned money in purchasing all the properties and in construction of the house and the shops and thereby sought for dismissal of the petition.