APHC010043032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 402/2022 Between: 1. SRI PALEM GOUTHAM CHANDRA KANTH, S/O LATLE SRI PALEM VENKATA RAO, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS D.NO.1/2617, 33B LIGH APHB COLONY, YERRAMUKKAPALLE POST, KADAPA DISTRICT AND ALSO RESIDENT OF 1/1944, SRIRAMNAGAR, ROAD, KADAPA ...APPELLANT AND 1. CHOUDAM VENKATARAMANA RAO, s/o C.Subbarayudu, age 55 years, D.No.9-170, Panduranga Nagar, Yerragadda, Hyderabad 500 018 ...RESPONDENT The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is filed against the order and decree dated 20-12-2018 passed in I.A.No.1129/2018 in O.S.No. 71/2018, on the file of I Additional District Judge Kadapa. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B S N NAIDU The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.402 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC by defendant assailing the order of status quo, dated 20.12.2018, passed in I.A.No.1129 of 2018 in O.S.No.71 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) Appellant herein is defendant in the Suit. Respondent – plaintiff filed O.S.No.71 of 2018 for partition of suit schedule properties into two equal shares. Plaintiff is brother-in-law of defendant. Grandfather of defendant namely Palem Narasimhulu acquired vast extent of properties in and around C.K. Dinne village. Some of those properties were inherited by Palem Venkata Rao, Palem Seshamamba and Devara Sujathamma, who were son and daughters of late Palem Narasimhulu. Defendant and wife of plaintiff are son and daughter of Palem Venkatarao. He stated to have died on 12.08.2007. Suit consists of Schedule-A, B and C properties. 3 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 “A”-Schedule properties are claimed to be acquired by plaintiff and “B”-Schedule properties are claimed to be acquired by defendant, part of “A” and “B” Schedule properties have been now claimed as “C”-Schedule properties. “A”-Schedule properties have been acquired by plaintiff by virtue of registered gift deed, dated 22.01.2004, executed by Devara Sujathamma, sister of Palem Venkatarao, which consisted an extent of Ac.5.44 cents in Survey No.861/1 to 861/6. Similarly, wife of plaintiff stated to have executed registered gift deed, dated 16.01.2004, for an extent of Ac.4.66 ½ cents in Survey Nos.860/1 to 860/5. (b) Further, the defendant had acquired an extent of Ac.8.34 cents in Survey Nos.858/1, 858/2, and 858/3 through registered gift deed, dated 22.01.2004, executed by Palem Seshamamba, paternal aunt. The same constituted by “A”-Schedule properties. The defendant also got another extent of Ac.8.23 cents in Survey No.866/1 to 866/6, through registered gift deeds of even date 22.01.2004 executed by his parents. The same constituted “B”-Schedule property. (c) Both plaintiff and defendant stated to have developed aforesaid lands into layout after securing Gram Panchayat permissions and accordingly, alienated the developed plots from time 4 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 to time. Mother of defendant died on 15.12.2017. Thereafter, disputes arose between defendant and plaintiff’s wife, who are siblings with respect to the other leftover properties standing in the name of their mother. The defendant claimed entire of those properties based on Will alleged to have been executed by their mother, which was denied and disputed by plaintiff. In the process, the leftover layout plots from “A”-Schedule and “B”-Schedule were sought to be alienated by defendant without the plaintiff’s acceptance, therefore, he preferred the Suit. Along with the Suit, I.A.No.1129 of 2018 has been filed for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating “C”-Schedule properties to third parties, pending disposal of the Suit. (d) The defendant filed written statement in the Suit and also counter to the I.A., inter alia, denying the right to claim entire of property under “A”-Schedule by plaintiff. It is stated that part of “A”-Schedule property, which was stated to have been gifted in favour of plaintiff by his wife, was in turn acquired through gift from their maternal aunt Seshamamba, by registered gift deed, dated 15.02.2003. As per the said gift deed, both wife of plaintiff Bindu Latha and the defendant were equally distributed the properties under gift. The said aspect was conveniently suppressed by the plaintiff. 5 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 Insofar as “B”-Schedule property was concerned, the title and rights in favour of defendant were not denied but rather admitted. Coming to “C”-Schedule properties, it was claimed that the same exclusively belong to defendant alone and plaintiff has no right or title to claim the same. Therefore, opposed the grant of injunction. In the counter, several other contentions were raised regarding framing of Suit, Court-fee and also vague and incorrect description of “C”-Schedule property. (e) The trial Court, after elaborately considering the pleas raised by both parties, has ultimately allowed the I.A. by directing both parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the main Suit. Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred by the appellant – defendant. 4. Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.S.N. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Suit itself ought not to have been entertained at first instance, inasmuch as the description of the properties in the schedule do not meet the requirement of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC and even on merits, the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated prima facie case, shown balance of convenience and irreparable loss that would cause for 6 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 granting the discretionary relief of injunction. The findings recorded by the trial Court clearly suffer from severe perversity. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff tried to sustain the impugned order by contending that the trial Court has clearly rendered findings on prima facie case, discussing the balance of convenience and the irreparable injury that would be caused in case injunction is not granted. Therefore, when there is a serious dispute on title to the property and the relationship between the parties is not disputed and denied, rightly both parties were directed to maintain status quo. He further contended that the ex parte injunction was granted on 20.07.2018 and thereafter, came to be made absolute on 20.12.2018 under the impugned order by directing both parties to maintain status quo and since then, the same order has been in operation. Inasmuch as now the trial of Suit itself has commenced, the balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff for continuing the same order till disposal of the Suit and at any rate, as the Suit is of the year 2018, certain time frame may be fixed for early disposal. 7. On perusal of the record and having given anxious consideration to contentions raised by both parties, this Court is of 7 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 the opinion that the findings rendered by the trial Court and conclusion drawn in directing both parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the Suit, are perfectly justified and do not suffer from perversity. Both plaintiff as well as defendant claim title to “A”- Schedule properties and “B”-Schedule properties in exclusivity. The defendant, however, disputed the title in favour of plaintiff to part of “A”-Schedule property. The factum of both plaintiff and defendant developing layout and disposing of developed plots jointly has not been seriously denied. The residuary leftover plots from “A”- Schedule and “B”-Schedule properties are shown to be “C”-Schedule properties in the plaint, however, the defendant denies and disputes that those properties shown under “C”-Schedule have nothing to do with Schedules “A” and “B” properties rather exclusively belong to the defendant alone. The trial Court, having considered respective pleas of both parties, has come to conclusion that there is serious dispute on title and possession over the “C”-Schedule property, which can only be decided finally, after adducing oral and documentary evidence during trial. Therefore, it has specifically rendered finding on prima facie case. 8. Coming to the other test of balance of convenience, since already ex parte injunction was granted way back on 20.07.2018 and 8 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 made absolute on 20.12.2018, which was continued till today, the balance of convenience lies in continuing the said order by way of allowing the parties to maintain status quo. The trial Court has recorded finding with respect to irreparable loss that would cause, in the process, held that if the defendant is permitted to alienate subject property, the same would multiply the litigation by way of creating third party interest, and on the other hand, if status quo is ordered to be maintained, the same would not cause harm or injury to neither of the parties. This Court is in agreement with the said reasoning, therefore, does not find any infirmity to interdict with such findings and observations. Though, learned counsel for the appellant tired to persuade this Court on the aspect of the plaintiff not adhering to the requirement of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC in describing “C”-Schedule property in the plaint, which entail rejection of plaint itself, this Court is not persuaded to go into the aforesaid aspect at this length of time. If at all, the said ground raised were to be appreciated, the defendant had ample opportunity in seeking for rejection of plaint at the earliest point of time. At any rate, whether “C”-Schedule property mentioned in plaint meets the requirement of legal position or not is a mixed question of fact and law, which can equally be decided by trial Court 9 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 after detailed trial, therefore, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the said aspect. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.1, held that the appellate Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by trial Court and substitute its own discretion, unless the trial Court is shown to have exercised such discretion arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or ignored settled principles of law. Further, appellate Court should not re-assess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below. If the discretion has been exercised by trial Court reasonably and in a judicious manner, even if it is possible for appellate Court to take a different view, it should not lean in favour of disturbing or unsettling the view one taken by the trial Court exercising its discretion. This Court, upon deeper examination of the findings and conclusions drawn, does not see any need for interference. 10. In view of the above observations, the order of trial Court directing both parties to maintain status quo with respect to “C”- Schedule property is hereby continued till disposal of main Suit. As it 1 (1990) (Supp) SCC 727 10 CGR, J. CMA No.402 of 2022 is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial has already commenced, it is in the interest of both parties to continue such arrangement. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the very Suit itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:22.09.2025. cs