Telangana High Court
Smt. Gangidi Anuradha vs Mr. G. Kranthi Ketan Reddy on 25 September, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
C.M.A.No.103 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2. The present is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC assailing the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned VIII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.586 of 2022 in O.S.No.1613 of 2022.
3. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected I.A.No.586 of 2022 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking for an injunction against the respondents/defendants from alienating or creating third party interest over the petition schedule property or any part thereof.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff contended that defendant No.2 and the plaintiff are real brother and sister. Defendant No.1 is the son of defendant No.2. 2 The suit has been filed seeking for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.04.2016. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since defendant No.2 and the plaintiff were real brother and sister, it was a property which was adjacent to defendant No.2's property. Defendant No.2, in the capacity of the brother of the plaintiff, was managing the said property and in the course of managing the property, it is contended that certain blank signatures were obtained by defendant No.2 and which has been subsequently utilized as a sale deed executed on 21.04.2016 in favour of defendant No.1. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the document was not, in fact, a document which was supposed to be used for the execution of a sale deed but by way of fraud and mischief at the hands of defendant No.2, the sale deed is said to have been executed fraudulently. He further submits that, in fact, defendant No.1 has also executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.2 on the same date i.e., 21.04.2016 on which date the sale deed was executed, which itself shows that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was instrumental in the fraudulent obtaining of the sale deeds and also subsequently executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.2 so far as management of the suit schedule property is concerned. However, perusal of the record would 3 show that it is not the only document which has been executed by the plaintiff as a sale deed. In the past also, way back in the year 1995, there were two sale deeds executed and again in the year 2000, there were two sale deeds which were executed. Thus, the plaintiff was not aware how the sale deeds have been executed in the past and the instant sale deed dated 21.04.2016 seems to have been executed in a similar fashion. Further, what is also reflected is that though the sale deed is said to have been executed way back in the year 2016, the instant suit for cancellation of the said sale deed was one which was filed after six years.
5. On this ground, the learned counsel for the respondent No1./defendant No.1 prays for rejection of the CMA, as according to him, the order is a reasoned order after due consideration of all the contentions put-forth by either of the parties.
6. Having heard the contentions put-forth on either side and on perusal of the record, what is reflected is that the instant suit is one which was filed as early as on 03.11.2022. As such, it is now almost two years time and it is also reflected that the suit has reached the stage of framing of issues, as the pleadings are all complete.
4
7. Today, on a query put by the Bench to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, he submits that the suit has reached the stage of framing of issues and the trial has to begin, we are of the considered opinion that if the respondents maintain status quo in respect of possession and title of the property till the culmination of the trial, it could be in the larger interest of both the parties. That in the event if any alienation or a part thereof is made, the same can lead to further complications and the trial may itself get further protracted. Thus, with a direction to the respondents/defendants ensuring maintenance of status quo in respect of the possession and title of the property, let the trial itself be proceeded with and decided at the earliest.
8. The CMA accordingly stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J _____________________ DR. G.RADHA RANI, J 25.09.2024 Lrkm