T SARITHA REDDY Vs. T OBIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is coming up for admission. It is stated by Sri K. Suresh Reddy that he had lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) SRI M. Achutha Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the order made in I. A. No. 510 of 2006 in O. S. No. 820 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool and also the order made in C. M. A. No. 32 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for S. C. , s. T. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, and would maintain that both the courts below erred in granting temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein, respondents in the said application from entering upon the matrimonial home. The learned counsel also had explained the relationship between the parties and would maintain that the first revision petitioner is none other than the daughter-in-law of the respondent and the counsel also would maintain that merely because the relationship is strained on that ground restrained order of this nature cannot be made. The learned counsel also would maintain that the courts below failed to take note that O. S. No. 12 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool, is nothing but a collusive one only with a view to defeat the rights of the first revision petitioner. The learned counsel would emphasize that the effect of the temporary injunction granted by the courts below would be depriving the first petitioner of her right to stay in the matrimonial home. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the prima facie findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the appellate court.

(3.) ON the contrary, Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent would maintain that whether the compromise decree between the co-parceners is collusive or not, may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. The learned counsel also would further maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances since the property in question now belongs to the respondent, father-in-law of the first petitioner, the first petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever at present on the ground that the same is her matrimonial home. The learned counsel also would maintain that the husband of the first petitioner is residing at Bangalore and the first petitioner is also residing at Bangalore and in the facts and circumstances of the case since both the courts came to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff in I. A. No. 510 of 2006 in o. S. No. 820 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is entitled for temporary injunction restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent herein i. e. , petitioner over the plaint schedule property. The said order deserves no disturbance at the hands of this Court as revisional court. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in S. R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra.