I ^ APHC010655922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.9 of 2024 Between: Dantuluri Venkata Sridevi, W/o. Dantuluri Vijay Kiran, Hindu, Aged about 48 years. Housewife, presently residing at 6915 Downs Ave, John’s Creek GA 30097, United States of America and Permanent R/o.l-1/B, Rambilli Village, Rambilli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, being rep. by her GPA holder Singupilla Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 64 years. Businessman, R/o.D.No.43-17 - 26/1, Venkataraju Nagar, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam -16. ...Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1. Ganaparthiraju Venkata Ramana Murthy @ Venkata Ramana Murthy, s/o. late Seetha Rama Raju, Hindu, aged 73 years, permanent R/o Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada Mandalam, Vizianagaram. 2. Ganapathiraju Venkata Sridhar, S/o. Venkata Ramana Murthy Raju, Hindu, aged 43 years, permanent R/o. Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada Mandalam, Vizianagaram. fi \.» V _ ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants decree on the file of VI Additional District Judge -cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatrram District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the material the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Sudhakar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V Hemanth Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the order and dated 30.06,2023 passed in I.A.No.328 of 2022 in O.S.No.149 of 2022 papers in 1. That the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby disposed of; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The VI Additional District Judge -cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Two CD Copies To TK \ ■> » HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 DECREE CMA No. 9 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS a APHC010655922023 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.9 of 2024 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, against the order and decree dated 30.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.328 of 2022 in O.S.No.149 of 2022, on the file of VI Additional District Judge -cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Dantuluri Venkata Sridevi, W/o. Dantuluri Vijay Kiran, Hindu, Aged about 48 years. Housewife, presently residing at 6915 Downs Ave, John’s Creek GA 30097, United States of America and Permanent R/0.1-1/B, Rambilli Village, Rambilli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, being rep. by her GPA holder Singupilla Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 64 years. Businessman, R/o.D.No.43-17 - 26/1, Venkataraju Nagar, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam -16. ...Appellant/Petitloner/Plaintiff AND ■V 1. Ganaparthiraju Venkata Ramana Murthy @ Venkata Ramana Murthy, s/o. late Seetha Rama Raju, Hindu, aged 73 years, permanent R/o Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada Mandalam, Vizianagaram. Ganapathiraju Venkata Sridhar, S/o. Venkata Ramana Murthy Raju, Hindu, aged 43 years, permanent R/o. Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada Mandalam, Vizianagaram. 2. ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the 2 respondent/2"^ defendant from alienating the petition B schedule properties to third parties pending disposal of the Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner nd : Sri Y Sudhakar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V Hemanth Kumar The Court made the following order: 1 t APHC010655922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHI^KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 9 of 2024 i Between: I.Dantuluri Venkata Sridevi, W/o. Dantuluri Vijay Kiran Aged about 48 Years Hindu Housewife, Presently Residing At 6915 Downs Ave, John’s Creek GA 30097, United States of America & Permanent R/o.l-1/B, Rambilli Village Rambilli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, Rep. By her GPA Holder Singupilla Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged 64 Years, Businessman R/o.D.No.43-17-26/1, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam -16. Venkataraju Nagar, ...APPELLANT AND I.Ganaparthiraju Venkata Ramana Murthy @ jVlurthy, S/o. Late Seetha Rgma Raju, Hindu, Aged 73 Years Permanent r Mandalam, Vizianagaram. Venkata Ramana R/0 Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada 2.Ganapathiraju Venkata Sridhar, S/o. Venkata Ramana Murthy Raju, Hindu, Aged 43 Years Permanent R/0.' Rajula Thammapuram Village, Denkada Mandalam, Vizianagaram. RESPONDENT(S): \ I .! . M 2 i Counsel for the Appellant: I.Mr.Y.SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Mr.V.HEMANTH KUMAR I I i * I 1 3 The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) The plaintiff in O.S.No.149 of 2022 on the file of the Court of ft * VI Additional District Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.06.2023 in partly allowing I.A.No.328 of 2022, filed I the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff inter alia submits that the above referred suit was filed seeking partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into two equal half shares by metes and bounds and to deliver one such share to the appellant / plaiptiff and for other reliefs. The respondents filed their written statement and contesting the matter. In the suit, the learned counsel submit? that the appellant / plaintiff filed I.A.No.328 of 2022 seeking an injunction .restraining the respondents / defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties to third parties. In respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, a separate I.A., was filed seeking injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from making constructions. He submits that the learned District Judge partly allowed I.A.Nb.328 of 2022 granting injunction only in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and rejected the relief in so far as plaint ‘B’ schedule property vide Order dated 30.06.2023. He submits that rejection of injunction in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, is not just or tenable, as such the ferrSO 4 Order dated 30.06.2023 to that limited extent is liable to be set asidQ. He further submits that if the respondents alienate the ‘B’ schedule property during the pendency of the suit and create third party interest, the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice, irreparable loss and great hardship. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal. . 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to sustain the order under challenge inter alia contending that the learned District Judge, after due consideration of the matter was not inclined to grant injunction insofar as plaint ‘B’ schedule property, that there are no merits, much less, valid grounds for interfering with the order under challenge. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the appeal. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made. Though the counsel on both sides seek to advance elaborate arguments, this Court is not inclined to examine the’order under challenge on merits as the findings if any recorded by thife Court may have impact on the adjudication of the suit. Suffice to state that any alienation during the pendency of legal prodeedings is at the risk of the parties to the transactions. Therefore, this Court instead of appreciating the mattfer on merits, deems it appropriate to dispose of the appeal, providing that the learned District Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the main suit, as expeditiously as possible. It need not be emphasized that any / 5 alienations in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, during the pendency of the suit, shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. Accordingly, with the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. i As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTK^^FFICER 1. The VI Additional District Judge -cum-Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnani Pistrict. (with records if any) 2. On&CC to Sri Y Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to§ri V‘Hernanth'Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 5. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// \ To at TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CMA No. 9 of 2024 ^ 17 SE? 2025 s . Currant Snciion DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS