APHC010534642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.29 OF 2025 Between: Maripi Appalanaidu, S/o Late Ramulu, Aged about 75 years, R/o Cheruvugattu Veedhi, Therlam Village and Mandal, Visakapatnam. ...Appellant AND 1. Gedela Anasuya, W/o Eswara Rao, Aged about 49 years, R/o 203/8, Sector No.4, Ukkunagaram, Visakapatnam. 2. Pediredla Vijayanirmala, W/o Nagabushan Rao, Aged about 47 years, R/o Near Ravindra Bharathi School, Sriram Nagar Colony, Salur, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 3. Pediredla Durga Bhavani, W/o Appalanaidu, Aged about 43 years, R/o Peddaveedhi, Therlam Village and Mandal, Visakapatnam Dist. 4. Bhupathi Bharathi Nagamani, W/o Nagaraju, Aged about 33 years, R/o Cheruvugattu Veedhi, Therlam Village and Mandal, Visakapatnam. 5. Allu Apparao, H/o Yashoda, Aged about 61 years, Rtd. BHPV employee, Drivers Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakapatnam. 6. Pudi Shymala, W/o Pudi Lakshmana Rao, D/o Yashoda, Aged about 35 years, R/o Drivers Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakapatnam. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.M.Karibasaiah Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.G.Rama Gopal 2 CMA_29_2025 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.4.2024 in I.A. No.768 of 2023 in O.S. No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram Camp Court at Bobbili. 2. The appellant is the defendant in the said suit. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed the above mentioned suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and allot five such equal shares to each of them. Along with the suit, they filed I.A. No.768 of 2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking ad interim injunction against the appellant/defendant from ever alienating the plaint schedule mentioned property till the disposal of the suit in the interest of justice. 3. The learned District Judge, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, vide impugned order allowed the said I.A., and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs restraining the appellant/defendant by way of prohibitory order not to sell away any piece of plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant inter alia contends that the plaint schedule properties are mostly self-acquired properties of the appellant/defendant and as the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit they should have established at least prima facie case for grant of injunction as sought for. He submits that the respondents have not filed any document and also states that even the appellant/defendant has also not filed any document. He submits that no oral evidence was adduced by either side. He also submits that in fact the respondents/plaintiffs did 3 CMA_29_2025 not choose to implead the children of the second wife of the appellant/ defendant, who are also entitled for share in the self acquired properties of the appellant. Be that as it may. He submits that as the order under challenge amounts to restraining the appellant/defendant from dealing with his self acquired property, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He submits that the learned Trial Court keeping in view the relationship between the parties and prima facie case in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, granted temporary injunction, else the respondents/plaintiffs would suffer serious prejudice if the properties are alienated/disposed of during the pendency of the suit by the appellant/defendant. By making the said submissions, learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. From a reading of the order under challenge, it is discernible that the parties to the suit did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence, in support of their respective claims. At least to come to a prima facie conclusion that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties, some material/documents ought to have been filed. No doubt, it is true that the appellant/defendant had also not filed any document though a plea is taken that the plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties. However, it is for the plaintiffs to file relevant documents before the Trial Court in support of their case and prove prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. 7. The order of the learned Trial Court in the absence of oral or documentary evidence and the observations made therein are not sustainable, in the considered opinion of this Court. For the said reason 4 CMA_29_2025 and in view the relationship between the parties, the order in I.A. No.768 of 2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court for passing the orders afresh after giving due opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Till appropriate orders are passed in I.A. No.768 of 2023, status quo with regard to the subject matter properties existing as on today shall be maintained in all respects by both the parties. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 24, 2025 vasu