Telangana High Court
Katta Laxmikanth, vs Katta Damayanthi on 29 August, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.244 OF 2025
Between:
Katta laxmikanth,
Son of late Sri K.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged 45 years, Occupation: Business,
Resident of Plot No.C-6, Vikrampuri Colony,
Secunderabad - 500 009. ... Appellant
AND
1. Katta Damayanthi W/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged 72 years, Occ: Housewife,
Presently R/o.Villa No.29, Cyprus Palms,
Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Medchal, Malkajgiri.
2. Juloori Padma Priya W/o.J.Umamaheshwar Rao
D/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao, aged 47 years,
Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.1, Plot No.64 & 65,
Gandhinagar, Ramakrishnapuram,
Hyderabad.
3. Katta Pratima, W/o.Raghu Kotrike
D/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao, aged 42 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o.Village No.29, Cyprus Palms,
Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Medchal, Malkajgiri. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.08.2025
Submitted for approval.
AKS,J & ETD,J
CMA_244_2025
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
AKS,J & ETD,J
CMA_244_2025
3
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.244 OF 2025
% Dated 29.08.2025
Between:
# Katta laxmikanth,
Son of late Sri K.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged 45 years, Occupation: Business,
Resident of Plot No.C-6, Vikrampuri Colony,
Secunderabad - 500 009. ... Appellant
And
$ 1. Katta Damayanthi W/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao,
Aged 72 years, Occ: Housewife,
Presently R/o.Villa No.29, Cyprus Palms,
Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Medchal, Malkajgiri.
2. Juloori Padma Priya W/o.J.Umamaheshwar Rao
D/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao, aged 47 years,
Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.1, Plot No.64 & 65,
Gandhinagar, Ramakrishnapuram,
Hyderabad.
3. Katta Pratima, W/o.Raghu Kotrike
D/o.late K.Seshagiri Rao, aged 42 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o.Village No.29, Cyprus Palms,
Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Medchal, Malkajgiri. ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Venu Gopal, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri Syed
Ghouse Basha
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.A.Achuthanand
AKS,J & ETD,J
CMA_244_2025
4
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1166
2. 2024 SCC OnLine All 2268
AKS,J & ETD,J
CMA_244_2025
5
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.244 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) This is an appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order, dated 01.04.2025, passed in I.A.No.203 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2024 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Court").
2. The appellant herein is the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents are the respondents/defendants before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that he is the son of Katta Seshagiri Rao and Smt.K.Damayanti (respondent No.1) and that Padma Priya and K.Pratima i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his sisters and that they are governed by Hindu Law. He submitted that his father Katta Seshagiri Rao has purchased the petition schedule property out of his self earned income through his business. Schedule-A property covers a house in plot bearing No.C6, admeasuring 716 Sq.yards at Vikrampuri Cooperative AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 6 House Building Society Ltd., Vikrampuri Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad, having purchased from Smt.Nirmala by their father Katta Seshagiri Rao in his wife's name i.e. in the name of respondent No.1/K.Damayanti. Schedule-B property refers to open land admeasuring 638.88 Sq.yards in survey No.55 situated at Trimulghery Village, Secunderabad Contonment Area, Hyderabad. Schedule-C property refers to jewellery weighing 3037.500 grams which was seized by the Income Tax Department towards tax dues and that the said dues were paid by Katta Seshagiri Rao while he was alive and the release of the said gold is pending for submission of legal heir certificate. Thus, his claim is that all the properties A to C are the self acquired properties of his father/Katta Seshagiri Rao and that he is entitled to a share in the property.
4. Further, he submits that his grandfather late K.Radhakrishnaiah who is the original patriarch of their family was a successful businessman and he had three children 1)Katta Nagendar Rao, 2)Katta Seshagiri Rao and 3)Mrs.R.Poornima. K.Nagendar Rao was blessed with two sons and one daughter i.e. Katta Sreenivas Rao, Katta Janardhana Rao and J.Prasoona Devi. It is his further case that late K.Radhakrishnaiah has acquired AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 7 house property bearing No.77/A, West Marredpally, Secunderabad under a lease deed dated 10.02.1961 in an area of 755.55 sq.yards and that Radhrakrishnaiah executed a will dated 26.12.1974 which was registered vide document No.21 of 1993 bequeathing his property to his three children giving 40% (302.22 Sq.yards) to his eldest son K.Nagendar Rao, 40% (302.22 Sq.yards) to his second son Katta Seshagiri Rao and 20% (151.11 Sq.yards) to his daughter Mrs.Poornima. Further that Katta Radhakrishnaiah has acquired an adjacent property admeasuring 300.22 sq.yards in the name of his wife Katta Laxmibai vide lease deed document No.652 of 1967 dated 12.02.1967. It is his further case that Smt.Laxmi Bai also has executed a Will dated 26.12.1974 bequeathing her house property with 11% share each to her grandsons i.e. the sons of Katta Nagendar Rao namely Katta Srinivas Rao, Katta Janardhan Rao and a share of 12% to Prasoona Devi and a share of 33% to Mr.Katta Seshagiri Rao which equals to 99.07 Sq.yards and further a share of 33% to Mrs.Poornima, which equals to 99.07 Sq.yards. After the demise of Katta Radhakrishnaiah and K.Laxmi Bai, Katta Seshagiri Rao received 401.29 Sq.yards in house property No.77/A and 77/B, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 8
5. After the demise of petitioner's grandparents, there was a family settlement deed entered on 05.02.1999 i.e. prior to amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act among the legal heirs of Katta Radhakrishnaiah and Laxmi Bai in which Seshagiri Rao, the petitioner's father has relinquished his right over his share of property to the petitioner i.e. part of house No.77/A and 77/B. Subsequently, during the settlement of accounts between Seshagiri Rao and Nagendar Rao, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 18.07.2009 wherein K.Seshagiri Rao out of the above said property of 77/A and 77/B has relinquished 250 Sq.ayrds to the LRs of K.Nagender Rao and 151.29 Sq.yards was offered as collateral security to the LRs of K.Nagender Rao.
6. It is his further case that prior to relinquishing the petitioner's share of 401.29 Sq.yards by his father, he has executed an undertaking by mentioning that he would give 400 Sq.yards in his self acquired property i.e. H.No.C-6, Vikrampuri Colony, Secunderabad out of the total house admeasuring 716 Sq.yards which is referred to as schedule-A property in this case. Initially the petitioner's father K.Seshagiri Rao entertained an intention of giving the house bearing No.77/A and 77/B at West Maredpally over 401.29 Sq.yards to the petitioner herein but since he has AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 9 relinquished his right over the said property towards the legal heirs of his brother Nagender Rao, he has mentioned by an undertaking that he would give 400 Sq.yards out of the Schedule-A property to the petitioner herein and that as per the said undertaking he is entitled to 400 sq.yards out of the 716 Sq.yards in schedule-A property. He further submitted that schedule-A property was purchased by the earnings of his father and also by availing a loan from LIC in the name of his mother and that his mother was a house wife and she did not have any earnings of her own.
7. He further averred that in the IT returns filed by respondent No.1 (K.Damayanti), she has mentioned that she has taken loan from the LIC to purchase the property and also that she has taken a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the petitioner herein when he was only 11 years old at the time of purchasing the schedule-A property. He submits that he was not in an age to consent for the same and the respondent No.1 has not obtained the permission of the Court to utilize his funds for purchasing the said property. It is his further case that when a search and seizure was conducted by the income tax department his father stated to the income tax authorities that schedule-A property was acquired by him and also that the entire AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 10 gold ornaments belong to him and that the said statements of his father were never opposed by his mother in any legal forum.
8. He further submitted that on 26.12.2000 the IT Department ordered for attachment of schedule-A property and that even at that point of time his mother never sought for any legal remedy and that his father K.Seshagiri Rao has cleared the entire loan and got released the schedule-A property from the attachment and also got released the gold jewellery under C-schedule but as K.Seshagiri Rao passed away the release of the said ornaments is pending for want of legal heir certificate.
9. It is his case that on attaining majority he has been reminding his father and mother about the fulfillment of their promise for transfer of schedule-A property in his favour and they have been assuring him that at the appropriate time they would do it and they made such a promise in front of the relatives and elders and thus, he believed their words. It is his case that during the illness of his father in the year 2013, he himself, his wife and daughter used to take care of his father and that unfortunately his father passed away on 02.11.2013 as he suffered with cancer of duodenum. His case is that immediately after the death of his father, the sons of AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 11 Nagendar Rao started harassing him to pay Rs.5 Crores threatening him that they would file cases against him if he does not pay that amount and further they have also filed O.S.No.69 of 2013 which was dismissed for default and O.S.No.964 of 2015 was also filed which was dismissed with exemplary costs.
10. He further submitted that a suit for recovery of money vide O.S.No.06 of 2003 was filed by Nagendar Rao, Seshagiri Rao and K.Sreenivas Rao against one Haridas Family for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,66,00,000/- and the said suit is renumbered as C.O.S.No.53 of 2016 and it is still pending. The said lis is with regard to the recovery of balance amount of their shares belonging to Katta family members in M/s.Fenoplast Ltd. It is his further case that in 1996 when he was still a minor he had been bequeathed with company shares to a tune of Rs.2,85,460/- and that the said holding of the petitioner comes to 18% of the total family holding and in monitory terms it could be of Rs.1,16,64,000/- value, which was never revealed to him by his parents and that the said shares were also sold away without taking any permission of the Court and without being any benefits passed on to him. He has learnt about the said facts when he was impleaded along with his mother and sisters in the above said case as legal heirs in the year 2014. On AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 12 gathering such information, he filed a suit for recovery of shares of M/s.Fenoplast Ltd, which was numbered as O.S.No.41 of 2017 and now renumbered as C.O.S.No.9 of 2021.
11. He further submitted that an AOP is pending between his father, mother and himself on one side as petitioners and the LRs of Katta Nagender Rao on the other side as respondents, before the sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator has submitted his resignation and after the arbitrator resigned, he filed an arbitration application No.41 of 2016 in the High Court of Telangana for appointment of a Neutral Arbitrator and that on 02.01.2020, the High Court passed orders appointing a sole arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings are pending.
12. He further submitted that there is another AOP No.237 of 2018 filed by K.Srinivasa Rao for a relief of about Rs.14,47,00,000/- based on all sorts of bogus and time barred claim. Pursuant to the death of Nagender Rao, his sons and also K.Seshagiri Rao have approached arbitrator A.V.Sadasiva to settle the pending issues and once again an arbitration agreement dated 17.07.2009 was entered upon and pursuant to which a reconciliation process was conducted and a memorandum of understanding dated 18.07.2009 AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 13 was entered for resolving all the issues. He further submitted that in the said arbitration case, LRs of late Nagender Rao have filed a counter claim of Rs.9,39,27,300/- and that in the said arbitration proceedings 50% of the fee i.e. to an extent of Rs.9,78,950/- was paid solely by him. It is his case that in all the cases filed against his father, he has been defending and he has been bearing all the legal expenses.
13. It is his case that he has been living in the schedule-A property ever since he was 13 years old and that he is taking care of the maintenance of property and all the property tax, water supply bills and electricity bills were paid by him and that he is residing for the past 30 years in the schedule A-property. It is his further case that he and his family are taking care of his mother Damayanti until recently and that their parents have spent huge amounts towards the education and marriage expenses of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are his sisters and that they have given away a huge dowry and 1 Kg gold ornaments to each of them at the time of marriage. He submitted that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Katta Seshagiri Rao and that according to the undertaking given by him, he is entitled to 400 Sq.yards in the petition A-Schedule Property and the properties AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 14 mentioned in the other two schedules have to be partitioned among them. On 08.05.2022, his sisters came to his house and demanded his mother/respondent No.1 to gift the entire A-schedule property in their favour for which there was a galata between them and from then on the respondents 2 and 3 have taken respondent No.1 along with them and ever since then she is residing with respondent No.3 and that while leaving the house they have taken all the documents along with them. It is his case that he requested them not to take respondent No.1 with them because he is the only son and has to take care but they did not heed to his request.
14. It is his case that subsequently, his mother and sisters have filed O.S.No.101 of 2022 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad for declaration of legal heirs and that he was shown as respondent. The suit is pending adjudication and that in the said suit they have stated that they are entitled for receiving the petition C-schedule property i.e. gold ornaments and they are bent upon depriving him of his share. He once again reiterated that all the properties are self acquired properties of his father and thus, they cannot be given solely to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. It is further contended that the petitioner along with well-wishers have requested the respondents to do smooth partition of schedule A, B AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 15 and C properties i.e. from Schedule-A property he is entitled to 400 sq.yards, schedule-B property has to be partitioned amongst the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and schedule-C also should be partitioned between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to
3. He has also learnt from the reliable sources that they are bent upon alienating the schedule-A property in favour of third parties. Therefore, he wants to safeguard his interest in the suit schedule property and that unless an injunction is granted, the schedule-A property may be alienated to third parties, hence, he prays for injunction of restraining the respondents from alienating the Schedule A and B properties.
15. The respondents have filed counter admitting the inter se relationship among the parties and also the family lineage from K.Radhakrishnaiah and also the lineage of Katta Nagender Rao and his sons. However, they denied that the properties are the self acquired properties of late Katta Seshagiri Rao. It is their contention that A-schedule property is self acquired property of the respondent No.1/K.Damayanthi. It is the case of respondents that respondent No.1 has purchased the suit schedule-A property from a vendor Smt.Nirmala under registered sale deed dated 04.02.1991 by obtaining LIC loan and other loans taken from the other family AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 16 members and that the said property is her self acquired property. They are not disputing the petitioner's contention that the schedule- B property is the self acquired property of B.Seshagiri Rao and they also admitted that the said B-property is liable to be partitioned among the family members. It is further admitted by the respondents about the jewellery under C-schedule property which is lying with the IT Department and it is also admitted that they have filed O.S.No.101 of 2022 seeking legal heir certificate.
16. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that schedule-C property is not the self acquired property of K.Seshagiri Rao. A part of the jewellery of schedule-C property belongs to her mother- in-law and the other part was purchased by K.Seshagiri Rao. It is her case that the petitioner is not entitled to schedule-A property at all and that it is her self acquired property and she has also executed a settlement deed dated 26.06.2023 in favour of her two daughters vide registered document No.1167 of 2023.
17. The respondents have not disputed the acquisition of properties and execution of will by Radhakrishnaiah. The execution of Will by Laxmibai W/o.Radhakrishnaiah is also not disputed and further they have admitted that after the death of Radhakrishnaiah, AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 17 late Seshagiri Rao has received 401.29 Sq.yards in house property No.77/A and 77/B, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. They have also admitted the MOU dated 18.07.2009 executed between K.Seshagiri Rao and respondent No.1 with the LRs of K.Nagender Rao. But their contention is that the said MOU is inadmissible in evidence as it is neither properly stamped nor registered. They also contended that K.Seshagiri Rao is entitled to 151.29 Sq.yards in the said property and that the said family settlement deed is not connected to the schedule-A property in any way. They further denied the averment that prior to relinquishing the alleged petitioner's share of 401 Sq.yards, K.Seshagiri Rao has given an undertaking that he would give 400 Sq.yards in schedule-A property to the petitioner.
18. Respondent No.1 further contended that the alleged family settlement deed dated 05.02.1999 is also inadmissible in evidence as it lacks proper stamp duty and registration. She further denied saying that there was no such undertaking given by her husband in respect of schedule-A property to the petitioner. She denied that her husband spent Rs.19 Lakhs from his earnings and also availed LIC loan to purchase schedule-A property.
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 18
19. The respondents further contend that the very claim made by the petitioner that schedule-A property is a Benami property would defeat his case as this Court would not have any jurisdiction in respect of benami properties covered under the aforesaid Act and also that in view of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the petitioner can neither claim nor enforce the right in respect of benami property against a person in whose name the property stands, as such, the petitioner has no right over the schedule-A property and further reiterated that the said property is purchased by respondent No.1 and that it is her self acquired property.
20. The respondent No.1 further denied to have taken any loan from the petitioner at his age of 11 years to purchase the schedule- A property. The ill-health and the death of her husband was not disputed but she denied the averment made by the petitioner that he was the only person who has taken care of K.Seshagiri Rao during his illness. It is her case that her daughters also have supported the medical bills and that all of them have taken care of her husband K.Seshagiri Rao during his illness. She also admits the pendency of other cases before the Commercial Court and that Katta Seshagiri Rao's family as a whole are entitled to Rs.16 Lakhs AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 19 share and it is further submitted by her that Rs.16 Lakhs of shares are receivable by Katta family from M/s.Fenoplast Limited and that her daughters were gifted shares in various companies and they were holding the same and that she has no knowledge whether the petitioner's grandfather bequeathed alleged company shares of 2,85,460 to the petitioner and she denies that the shares belonging to petitioner were sold away without his permission and in fact she has no knowledge about the sale of shares standing in the name of the petitioner. She also admits the pendency of arbitration proceedings between herself, her husband and the petitioner being on one side and the LRs of Nagender Rao on the other and that she herself and her daughters have contributed to the legal expenses as and when demanded by the petitioner and that she has been signing all the affidavits and papers put forth by the petitioner from time to time. She also stated that the electricity, water and maintenance charges were being collected by the petitioner from her time to time. She further alleges that the petitioner never took care of her and that it is her daughters who took care of her at all times and she further stated that in her income tax returns she has shown the purchase of schedule-A property and the source of purchase from LIC loan and the loans AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 20 taken from other daughters etc., Apart from being an income tax assessee, she is also a wealth tax assessee. She further alleges that the petitioner has ill-treated, abused and threatened her and thus, he was compelled to move out of the schedule-A property and she has started residing with her younger daughter and that the petitioner is raising a false claim over the schedule-A property and she further denied the allegation that they are trying to alienate the property by creating third party interest.
21. Thus, in all, the case of the respondents is that schedule-A property is the self acquired property of respondent No.1 while they have submitted that schedule-B property is purchased by late K.Seshagiri Rao and thus, it is entitled to be partitioned among all the parties while schedule-C property, the jewellery is partly purchased by K.Seshagiri rao and a part of it was inherited by respondent No.1 from her mother-in-law. Thus, they prayed to dismiss the petition saying that the petitioner does not have a prima facie case as the schedule-A is self acquired property of respondent No.1.
22. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following point for consideration:
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 21 "Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?"
23. On hearing both the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the petition on merits by considering the documents produced before the Court and also considering the arguments put forth by both the parties. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present CMA is filed before this Court.
24. Heard the submissions of Sri Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents.
25. The learned appellant counsel submits that the schedule-A property is the self acquired property of late K.Seshagiri Rao and that he promised during his life time that he would give away 400 Sq.yards in favour of the petitioner by giving an undertaking and that the petitioner herein is entitled to 400 Sq.yards in petition schedule-A property. It is his further case that schedule-B and C properties are also the self acquired properties of K.Seshagiri Rao and that it can be partitioned equally among all the parties, though the schedule-C jewellery property is lying with the income tax AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 22 department which was seized during raid, and the dues were cleared by K.Seshagiri rao during his life time but the release of the property is pending for want of legal heir certificate. He further argued that schedule A to C properties are the self acquired properties of late K.Seshagiri Rao, the father of the petitioner herein and thus, he is entitled to equal shares in B and C schedule, while he is entitled to 400 Sq.yards in Schedule-A property as an undertaking was given by K.Seshagiri Rao during his life time. He further argued that the respondents are trying to alienate the property in favour of third parties and therefore, to protect the interest of the petitioner, an injunction needs to be granted in his favour and that the respondents have to be restrained from alienating the schedule A and B properties in favour of third parties.
26. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that schedule-A property is the self acquired property of respondent No.1 and that the petitioner has no right to claim in the said property and he is not entitled to any share in the A-schedule property. He further argued that schedule-B property is the property acquired by Seshagiri Rao, therefore, all the parties are entitled to shares in the said B schedule property. He further argued that the release of schedule-C property is pending before AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 23 the income tax authority for want of legal heir certificate. He also submitted that the respondents have filed a suit for legal heir certificate and once that is obtained, they can pursue the remedies with the income tax authorities and that C-schedule property is not available right now for partition. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the respondents never entertained any intention to alienate the petition schedule properties and that schedule-A property is already settled towards respondent Nos.2 and 3 by respondent No.1 as she is the absolute owner of the schedule-A property. Thus, schedule-A property is not available for partition and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief of injunction against these properties.
27. Having heard the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from alienating the Schedule A and B properties?
2) Whether the order and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts?
3) To what relief?
AKS,J & ETD,J
CMA_244_2025
24
28. POINT NO.1:
a) The petitioner herein is seeking injunction restraining the
respondents from alienating schedule A and B properties. For
doing so he has to prove that he has a prima facie case and also that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour and if injunction is not granted he would be put to irreparable loss and injury.
b) Admittedly, the schedule-A property stands in the name of respondent No.1/K.Damayanti. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property was purchased by his father in the name of his mother K.Damayanti and that Damayanti did not have any source of income and that she is only a house wife and therefore, his father has purchased from his funds.
c) A perusal of sale deed/Ex.P1 dated 04.02.1991 reveals that it is purchased by K.Damayanti from one Nirmala and it proves the ownership of A.Damayanti over the schedule-A property.
d) The title is not in dispute but the source of funds is in dispute.
It is the case of the petitioner that it was purchased by his father in the name of his mother, while the case of the respondent No.1 is that she has purchased the property on her own by obtaining LIC loan and also the loan from other family members.
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 25
e) While advancing arguments the respondents counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in the counter filed by the respondents in AOP No.237 of 2018 it was mentioned by the respondents that the property was purchased by K.Damayanti who is respondent No.1 herein and that it is her self acquired property. The AOP No.237 of 2018 was filed by the sons of K.Nagender Rao against K.Damayanti, K.Laxmikanth, Poornima and Krishna Priya. That means the petitioner herein is respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1 in the said AOP. In the counter filed by the respondents in this case they have clearly stated that the said document i.e. the counter in AOP is filed as Ex.R2 in the present case. A perusal of the said Ex.R2 reveals that the petitioner herein and his mother/K.Damayanti have stated that the schedule-A property is the self acquired property of K.Damayanti and the same can be seen from the income tax and wealth tax returns submitted by her. This submission falsifies the case of the petitioner herein.
f) While deciding a temporary injunction application, the Court cannot go in detail into the evidentiary aspect, however prima facie case has to be established by the petitioner. By looking into these documents i.e. Exs.P1 and R2 cumulatively, an inference can be AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 26 drawn that schedule-A property is purchased by K.Damayanti and that it is her self acquired property. The petitioner herein himself has submitted the said counter before the arbitrator saying that schedule 'A' property is self acquired property of respondent No.1 and now he cannot turn around and state contrary to his own statement. Further, the petitioner says that there was an undertaking given by his father. It is only an oral undertaking and that there is no document to that effect.
g) A perusal of the family settlement deed dated 05.02.1999 reveals that K.Seshagiri Rao, party No.4, keeping in view the welfare of his only son i.e. party No.6 in order that he develop the property into a profitable manner, has relinquished his rights and ownership of his 40% share in plot No.77/A and 33% share in Plot No.77/B in favour of his only son i.e. party No.6, who will hereinafter be the absolute owner of the schedule-II property. But apart from that there is no other mention in the said family settlement deed and it has no nexus at all to the schedule-A property in this present petition. But the petitioner has contended that prior to relinquishing his share in the ancestral property, his father has promised to give him 400 Sq.yards in the schedule-A property. While the recitals of family settlement deed under Ex.P6 does not show the same.
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 27 Ex.P9 is the settlement deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 settling the property under schedule-A to both her daughters. Thus, once the settlement deed got executed by the owner of the property, schedule-A property would not be available for partition and more so, the prima facie case of the petitioner cannot be held to be established in view of all these documents.
h) Prima facie the petitioner should be able to prove that he has interest in the Schedule-A property and that his interest needs to be protected. But by virtue of these Exs.P1, P9 and R2, all these three documents would throw away the contention of the petitioner that the schedule-A property is the self acquired property of his father. The title aspect cannot be looked into at this juncture and the total case should be decided on merits, the truth or falsity of the statements and the validity of the documents would be subjected to trial and it would be only after full-fledged trial that the source of funds and the purchase of the said property and the mode of acquisition and further the rights of the parties can be determined. However, prima facie, it cannot be held that the petitioner has interest in the schedule-A property to grant any injunction in his favour. Admittedly, schedule-B property is the property acquired by AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 28 late K.Seshagiri Rao and the respondents also admit that all of them are equally entitled to shares in the said property. The respondents further denied the threat of alienation. However, the petitioner counsel has vehemently argued that the counter in AOP cannot be put against them to defeat the rights of the petitioner herein and that once if alienation of Schedule A and B properties takes place, the interest of petitioner if any at the conclusion of trial cannot be protected if the properties are not available for partition.
i) Admittedly, schedule B properties are available for partition and that all the four parties are entitled to equal share in the properties, even then the petitioner cannot claim any injunction against the alienation of the entire suit schedule property under B schedule, he can only claim to the extent of his 1/4th share in the property.
j) Thus, to avoid any complications and to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, this Court opines that the interest of justice would be met if 1/4th share in the suit schedule 'B' property is protected from alienation during the pendency of proceedings.
AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 29
k) Threat of alienation is pleaded by the petitioner and denied by the respondents. However, admittedly, schedule-B property is the self acquired property of Seshagiri Rao and is bound to be partitioned among all the four equally. Thus, in case if there is any alienation during the pendency of proceedings that would result in multiplicity of proceedings and if the share of the petitioner is also alienated, he would be put to irreparable loss and injury.
l) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Manoj Arora v. Mamta Arora 1, wherein it was held that it is legally permissible for a person to purchase an immovable property in the name of his spouse from his known sources, and in which position, the property purchased will not be a benami property but the property will be of the de jure owner/plaintiff/husband and not of the de facto owner, being the respondent/defendant/wife. But in the present case the petitioner herein has stated that schedule-A property to be the self acquired property of the respondent No.1 i.e. his mother as admitted in AOP No.237 of 2018, therefore, it can be held that the petitioner contradicts his own submission and the said facts do not get attracted to the present case.
1 AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1166 AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 30
m) The learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Saurabh Gupta v. Smt.Archna Gupta 2, wherein it was held that the suit schedule property should be protected to safeguard the interest of the parties as in the case, prima facie the property is joint Hindu family property and protection of property from transferring to a third party is necessary, consequently in such case protection is necessary against further transferring the property or changing the nature of the same, if it is not protected.
n) In the light of the said decision in Saurabh Gupta's case (supra) and to protect the suit schedule property during the pendency of the proceedings and further to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is opined that injunction can be granted restraining the respondents from alienating Schedule B properties to the extent of 1/4th share of the petitioner. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
29. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 2024 SCC OnLine All 2268 AKS,J & ETD,J CMA_244_2025 31
30. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the CMA is partly allowed setting aside the order, dated 01.04.2025, passed in I.A.No.203 of 2024 in O.S.No.26 of 2024 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the respondents are temporarily restrained from alienating the schedule B properties to the extent of 1/4th share of the petitioner. No costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 29 .08.2025 ns