P BHANKARANARAYANA Vs. P RAJESWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under O.43, R.1 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is directed against the order dated 19-8-1989 in M.J.C. No. 10/89 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bherhanpur. The aforesaid miscellaneous proceeding under O.39, Rr.1 and 2 of the Code arises out of Title Suit No. 6/89 pending in the same Court praying for partition and separate allotment of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties consisting of houses, moveables and bank accounts.

(2.) The plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in this appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 are his brothers and defendant No. 3 is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 4 is a partnership firm having defendant No. 3 and his three sons as partners. Defendant No. 5 is the wife of defendant No. 2. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are the Nationalised Banks where money has been deposited in the names of the partnership and other members of the family. In the suit the plaintiff has prayed for partition of his 1/4th share in the suit properties for a declaration that the partnership firm has been dissolved since 1-4-1976 and for rendition of accounts of the joint family business and the partnership firm. In the application under O.19, Rr.1 and 2 of the Code he prayed for restraining defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 from entering into the residential house of the plaintiff and also from disturbing the plaintiffs possession of the shop house in Venkateswar temple street where the plaintiff alleges to have been carrying on his individual business. At the initial stage the learned Subordinate Judge by an interim order directed status quo to be maintained, but at the final hearing the order of status quo was vacated and so also the injunction prayed for This appeal is directed against the said order.

(3.) The background of filing of the present suit as stated by the plaintiff is as follows : In 1977 defendants 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 63 of 1977 against the present defendant No. 3 and the appellant for partition of the joint family properties, which was dismissed for default on 18-7-1980. Thereafter defendant No. 2 alone filed another suit (Title Suit No. 34 / 83) against the appellant, and present defendants 1 and 3 which was also not pursued and was dismissed on 2-11-1983 as not pressed. The present defendant No. 3 was residing with the appellant in one of the family houses, but during the absence of the appellant, he left the house with all his belongings and has been trying to sell away the joint family houses being under the evil advice of defendant No. 2 for which the present suit has been filed.