Telangana High Court
R Lokeswari And Another vs G Venugopal on 13 August, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
C.M.A.No.3 of 2018
Date: 13.08.2018
Between:
R.Lokeswari W/o.A.Seshadri,
Aged 62 years,
D.No.20-1-420/B5,
Subhash Nagar,
Korlagunta,
Tirupati and another ... Appellants
And
G.Venugopal S/o.Venkataramaiah,
Aged 45 years, R/o.D.No.6-8-1017,
Flat No.501, My Home Apartments,
Khadi Colony, N.G.O. Colony,
Tirupati, Chittoor district. ... Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : Mrs.S.Pranathi Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.S.Bhatt The Court made the following:
2
CVNR,J & GSP, J C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 Date: 13.08.2018 Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against order dated 05.07.2017 in I.A.No.15 of 2016 in O.S.No.6 of 2016, whereby the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, while allowing the said I.A. filed by the respondent, directed the appellants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property till the disposal of the suit, on condition that the respondent shall file an affidavit, undertaking that he shall remove the constructions in the schedule property in case he fails to succeed in O.S.No.6 of 2016.
2. At the hearing, Ms.Pranathi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that her clients have earlier filed O.S.No.13 of 2016 for permanent injunction against the respondent. That in the said suit, they have secured a temporary injunction in I.A.No.31 of 2016 filed by them and that in spite of the injunction order, the respondent highhandedly encroached upon the property and started raising construction. She further submitted that as the said suit had become infructuous, her clients have filed O.S.No.67 of 2017, seeking comprehensive relief for declaration of title and mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to remove the constructions, compound wall and other constructions and that the same is pending.
3. Mr.S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in compliance of the condition imposed by the lower court, his client has filed an affidavit, undertaking that in the event of his being 3 CVNR,J & GSP, J C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 Date: 13.08.2018 unsuccessful in the suit, he will remove the constructions in the petition schedule property and pay damages if any.
4. In the light of the prima facie finding rendered by the lower court in favour of the respondent and the interests of the appellants having been protected by the lower court in the form of the respondent filing an affidavit to the effect as noted above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower court.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, making it clear that the constructions if any undertaken by the respondent during the pendency of the suit, shall be subject to the result thereof and that the respondent shall abide by the affidavit filed by him before the lower court.
6. As a sequel to the dismissal of the C.M.A., I.A.No.2 of 2017 stands dismissed as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _____________________ (Gudiseva Shyam Prasad,J) Date: 13th August, 2018 msb 4 CVNR,J & GSP, J C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 Date: 13.08.2018