Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.C. Hinnan Lakshmi Devi, vs M. Pedda Lakshmi Devi, on 28 September, 2021
Author: D. Ramesh
Bench: D. Ramesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
C.R.P.No.1060 of 20201
ORDER:-
The present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed aggrieved by the orders dated 06.04.2021 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of VIth Additional District Judge, Ananthapuram at Gooty which reversed the Order dated 07.08.2019 in I.A.No.205 of 2019 in O.S.No.118 of 2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.
2. The original suit is filed for partition and separate possession. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.205 of 2019 in O.S.No.118 of 2019 under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C seeking temporary Injunction in her favour and against the respondent on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal. The same was dismissed with costs. Against which, an appeal was preferred vide C.M.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, Gooty. The lower appellate court was pleased to pass the following judgment:-
"11. The suit is for partition and separate possession. Assignment land is not alienable but heritable admittedly Anjinamma died intestate. So both parties are having right in the suit property. With regard to the possession and as already submitted by the counsel for the petitioner submitted and possession of the co- owners possession by other co-owners is to be considered. However as contended by the counsel for the respondent after dismissal of the I.A. further constructions were completed. Thereby C.M.A became infructuous is also to be taken into consideration. However, the respondent cannot make any further constructions in the suit property till disposal of the suit. If any constructions are there, the petitioner is entitled for damages and she is entitled for share along with constructions.
12. In the result, the C.M.A. is partly allowed with the direction that the respondent shall not make any further constructions from the date of this order. The trial court is directed to dispose of the same within 6 months from the date of this order".
Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision came to be filed. 2
3. Heard both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that the lower Appellate Court decided the issue stating that the respondent cannot make any further constructions in the suit property till the disposal of the suit. If any constructions are made, the petitioner is entitled for damages and she is entitled for share along with constructions. The suit is for partition and separate possession. Hence, it is contended that the said observations would affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, requested to set aside the observations made by the lower Appellate Court.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition directing the Court below to proceed with the trial and decide the issues involved in the Suit without being influenced by the observations made by the lower Appellate Court.
5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 28-09-2021 EPS 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 45 C.R.P.No.1060 OF 2021 Date: 28-09-2021 EPS