Smt. Sunitha Agarwal v. Sri. Nand Kishore Agarwal

[ 3431 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FiFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURAALE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 387 OF 2021 Appeal Under order 43 Rure 1 of cpc against the order dated 20t02t2024 made in 1.A.No.734 of 2o22 in o.s.No. r647 of 2022 on the file of the court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between:

1 |Tt. Sr.rnitha Agqyqt. ryio M_afres_fr Agarwat, Aged about 58 years, Occ_ Household, R/o. H.No. 15 1-469. Feelkhana. Hyderabad, Telangana, And g]s9 at: FlatI'e,. 90i, DSR Reganti Apartments,'Vithatraohagar, "Ma,llirpri Hyderabad - 500081

2. Ms. Jahnvi Gupta, D/o. Smt. Neha Gupta Aged about 19 years.

3. Ms. Aarushi Gupta, D/o. Smt Neha Gupta /Aged about 15 years (minor) l i , i i Both_ the-_petitioners are represented by therr naturar guardian Mrs. Neha Gup1a, W/o. Mr. Nikhit Gupta, Aged aboui 3+ years, R/o. -U.No. S_S_7'BilB-ind C, King Koti, Hyderabad Both the Petitioners' No 2 and 3 are residents of R/o. H.No. 3_5-7MlB and C, King Koti, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND lrl. NSl9,K:horp,ASp.ryr], S/o Late Sri pooranmat, _Aged about 63 years, occ- Busmess, R/o. Plot No. 27, Sunrise Villas, Upparp-ally, Attapur, RangC Reddy District, Telangana ...RESPONOENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstanoes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleas,ed to

suspend the order Dl. 2OtO2t2O24 passed by the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, until disposal of the CMA. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Raghava Ramana The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

i ;

:

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.57 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble SriJustice P.SAM KOSHI) The present is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeat which has been filed under Order 43 Rule I of C.P.C., assailing the order, dated 2O'02'2024 passed in I.A.No.734of2022ino.S.No.1647of2022bytheIVAdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar (for short 'the trial court').

2. Heard Mr.B.Vamshidhar Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.Raghava Ramana, learned counsel lor the respondent' Perused the material available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the l'A'No'734 of 2022 which is a petition under order 39 Rule | & 2. The temporary injunction is in the nature of restrain imposed upon the respondents or any of the person acting on their behalf t'rom alienating or creating third party interest over the suit schedule property'

4. The entire dispute revolves around the land admeasuring Ac'0-18 guntas which is said to have been gifted to the delendant No'[ by one Ms.Varsha Agarwal.

5, The defendant No.l in tum is said to have entered into an agreement of sale wlth the plaintiffs on 01.12.2018 in respect of the sale of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.0- I 8 guntas.

6. The petitioners herein who are the defendants contented that they do not have any objection so far as injunction being operational on the suit schedule property except for 1000 square yards of property which is atlegedly to have been gifted by the defendant No.l in favaour of her two granddaughters i.e., defendant Nos.2 & 3.

7. The primary objection raised by the petitioner was so f'ar as the authority of entering into agreement of sale in respect of the alorementioned 1000 square yards of property which is said to have already been gifted by defendant No.l to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and therefore rhe agreelnent of' sale to the aforesaid agreement is bad and in the said circumstances, the granting of ternporary injunction was also not proper, legal and justified E. On the contrary, the leamed counsel appearing lor the rcspondents during the course ol his submissions produced before this Court a legal notice issued by the defendant No.1 Ms.Sunita Agarwal. dated 11.05.2021 claiming herself to be the absolute owner of the l8 guntas of land and that because of the financial constraints that she was facing. she has decided to sell the said property i.e., 18 guntas ofland.

9. According to the respondent, ifthe respondent No'l had already gifted the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, she should not had initiated steps for the selling of the entire l8 guntas of land which itself goes contrary to the objection raised by the appellants herein in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

10. Having heard the contentions put forth not either side and on perusal of record what is primarily to be seen is the nature of temporary injunction granted. For ready reference the operative portion of the injunction order granted by the trial court is reproduced herein under: In the result, the petttion is allowed and accordingly the Temporary Injunction is granted in favour of petitioner restraining the Respondents or any other persons ucing on their behalf from alienating the Petition Schedule Property to third parties or creating any third party interest over the Petition Schedule Property to third parties, pending disPosal of suit.

The plain reading of the said injunction order would clearly re flect that except for the injunction so far the respondents being restrained from creating third party interest or alienating the suit schedule property, all other rights which have been enjoyed by the respondent/defendants. the

appellants herein remains intact. Under the circumstances, we did not find any substantial prejudice being caused so far as the interest of the appellant are concemed from the nature of injunction that has been passed by the triat court. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal thus, to the aforesaid extent being devoid of merits. deserves to be and is accordingly rejected As a sequel, rniscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand SRINIVASA RAO T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER closed. No order as to costs.

Sd,. K.

The lV Addrtronal District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at To, bF"Yei: :, I e YiT:ltgh6: n:i:Y A!,[""f,:i8T"'3' One CC to Sri K Raghava t Two CD CoPtes V t l/sh \.t,

HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212024 H-- r:/il o?- ti ') J) c 01 r,{AR 2c25

JUDGMENT

* :.'or.rCF CMA.No.387 ot 2024 REJECTING THE CMA w (^\tlos