1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:: NELLORE

Monday this the 1st day of December 2014.

Present:: Sri Ch. Ramachandra Murthy, B.Com M.L

IV Addl. District Judge,
Nellore.

C.M.A.No. 58/2011

Badanapuri Rajamma
wife of Masthanaiah,
aged 47 years, Housewife
and resident of Gurivindapudi
village, Manubolu Mandal,
Sri P.S.R.Nellore District. ... Appellant

Vs.

T.Ankamma
wife of Yanamala Eswaraiah,
Hindu, aged 20 years,
Housewife and residing at Ramapuram village,
Kesavaram Panchyat, Kota Mandal,
Sri P.S.R.Nellore District. ... Respondent

On appeal against the decree and order of the III Additional

Junior Civil Judge,Nellore dated 19.8.2011 made in
I.A.No.297/2011 in O.S.No.255/2010

T.Ankamma ... Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

Badanapuri Rajamma ... Respondent/2nd Defendant

This C.M.A coming on 13-11-2014 for final hearing before

me in the presence of Sri Venati Chandrasekhar Reddy advocate
for the petitioner and of Sri D.Venkata Ramaiah advocate for the
respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration
till this day, this Court made the following-

ORDER

1. Appellant is the respondent in I.A.No.297/2011 in O.S.No.255/2011 on

the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore preferred miscellaneous
 2

appeal against the granting of temporary injunction restraining the respondent

from alienating property, dated 19-8-2011.

2. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the petition are that:

(i) That originally suit property belongs to one Uppu Ankamma, who

executed registered settlement deed 15.7.1965 in favour of the first defendant

creating life interest in her favour and vested remainder in favour of children of

first defendant. In violation of the terms of the settlement deed, the first

defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1991 in favour of her

brother Uppu Krishnaiah. Uppu Krishnaiah intern sold away the property in

favour of second defendant/respondent through a Registered Sale Deed dated

15.6.2001. Those sale deeds are nominal documents and they are not valid

and binding on the petitioner. Hence, the petition restraining the respondent

from alienating the suit property. Hence, the petition.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition and

further contends that the respondent does not know the execution of

settlement deed in favour of first defendant and that she has been possession

and enjoyment of the suit property since the date of sale deed and that the

first defendant sold away the property for the maintenance and welfare of her

children and that defendants 3 and 4 are aware of the execution of sale deeds.

The respondents also acquired right by way of adverse possession. Therefore,

she requests to dismiss the petition with costs.

5. On behalf of petitioners, Ex.P-1 to P-6 were marked. No documents are

marked on behalf of respondent/second defendant.

6. On hearing both sides and on appreciation of documentary evidence, the

learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge come to the conclusion that the there is

primafacie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and

finally allowed the petition and granted temporary injunction till disposal of the

suit.

7. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the sole respondent/2nd

defendant preferred the present miscellaneous appeal and contends that the
 3

respondent is a bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration and that the

trial court failed to see that the petitioner has not taken any steps for

cancellation of documents for the last 10 years and filed the suit at a belated

stage and that the petition is not maintainable since there is no main relief of

permanent injunction. Therefore, appellant requests to allow the appeal and

consequently dismiss the petition in I.A.No.297/2011 in O.S.No.255/2011.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration in the present appeal is:

1. Whether the decree and order by the learned III

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore dated 19-8-2011
in I.A.No.297/2011 in O.S.No.255/2011 is liable to be
set-aside?
POINT

10. It is not in dispute that originally the suit property covered in an extent

of Ac 0-50 cents out of Survey No.118/A02 out of an extent of Ac 0-80 cents

and S.No. 118/A-3 in an extent of Ac 0-42 cents, belonged to Uppu Ankamma,

who executed Registered Settlement Deed dated 15.7.1965 in the original of

Ex.P-2 in favour of first defendant Thuraka Ankamma. As per the recitals of

Ex.P-2, a life interest is created in favour of first defendant and vested

reminder in favour of children of first defendant. The plaintiff (petitioner),

fourth defendant are daughters and third defendant is son of first defendant. It

is also not in dispute that the first defendant executed a registered sale deed in

respect of suit property in favour of one Uppu Krishnaiah under original of Ex.P-

1 sale deed dated 14-10-1991. In turn, Uppu Krishnaiah sold away the suit

property in favour of the respondent/second defendant under the original of

Ex.P-3/Registered Sale deed dated 15-6-2001.

11. Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that in violation of the

terms of settlement deed in Ex.P-2, the first defendant executed Registered

Sale Deeds in Ex.P-1 and further the purchaser under Ex.P-1 executed sale

deed in favour of respondent under Ex.P-3 and those sale deeds are not valid

and that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court rightly

granted temporary injunction till disposal of the suit and that there is no need

to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court.

 4

12. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent/appellant

argued that respondent perfected her title by way of adverse possession and

that the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 did not question sale deeds for the

last 10 years and there is no prima facie case and balance of conveneance in

granting temporary injunction and further argued that the petitioners are not

entitled to temporary injunction on the ground of multiplicity of proceedings.

13. It is not in dispute that main suit is filed for declaration that the sale

deeds dated 14-10-1991 and 15-6-2001 are not valid and binding on the

plaintiff/petitioner. On perusal of Ex.P-2/Settlement Deed, it appears that a life

interest is crated in favour of second defendant. It is a question of fact and law

as to whether the respondent perfected her tilte over the suit property and

whether the sale deeds in dispute are valid and binding on the

petitioner/plaintiff. It is a matter of evidence during the trial of the suit to

decide those issues.

14. As argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner in order to avoid
multiciplity of the proceedings, it is just and necessary to restrian the
respondent from alienating suit property further. The trial court after referring
to the recitals of Ex.P-2 settlement deed and nature of the suit, has rightly
come to the conclusion and granted temporary injunction till the disposal of the
suit. If injunction is not granted the respondent/second defendant may
alienate the suit property. It leads to multiplicity of proceedings. In the
circumstances of the case and in order to protect the suit property till disposal
of the suit, the granting of temporary injunction is valid and justified. There are
no grounds to disturb the finding recorded by the trial court. The said finding is
liable to be confirmed.
15. In the result, the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the
respondent/second defendant in I.A.No.297/2011 in O.S.No.255/2011 on the file
of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore dated 19-8-2011 is hereby dismissed
without costs by confirming the said order and decree.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court, this the 1st day of December 2014 .

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

---NIL---

IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE.