Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India is filed assailing the order in I.A No.1020 of 2014 in O.S No.607 of 2014 dated 24.01.2019 passed by II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, whereby the civil miscellaneous appeal No.3 of 2017 was allowed, setting aside the order passed in I.A No.1020 of 2014 in O.S No.607 of 2014 passed by Principal Section Civil Judge, Madanapalle dated 08.08.2017, granted interim injunction, during pendency of O.S No.607 of 2014. The petitioners are the respondents/defendants and the respondent is the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial court.

6. While the matter stood thus, father of the respondent herein executed another gift deed in favour of his youngest son M. Venkataramana Reddy on 05.02.2009 for the remaining extent of Ac.4.03 cents in the very same survey number and delivered possession of the same and continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Though there was no condition for revocation of the gift, father of the respondent, M. Reddeppa Reddy, cancelled the gift deed by executing, cancellation deed dated 23.09.2010, at the instance of the petitioners herein and his family members. Thereupon, the respondent filed O.S No.7 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, against his father for declaration of his title to the property and for consequential permanent injunction and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent herein on 05.01.2012, the decree is binding on the petitioners herein.

13. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision under Article 227 of The Constitution of India is filed, mainly contending that the respondent filed suit for partition and other consequential reliefs, claiming to be the member of the joint family, while contending that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and thereby, in a suit for partition while asserting that the respondent herein and other defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property, grant of temporary injunction, during penedency of the suit is a serious irregularity. It is also contended that the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle did not consider certain documents, produced before the trial court, while observing that those documents cannot be looked into at this stage for deciding the appeal, in para Nos.22 and 23 of the judgment. Thereby non-consideration of documentary evidence marked as Exs.P8 to P10, R1, R4 and R6 is a grave irregularity, committed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and requested to set aside the order passed in C.M.A No.3 of 2017 dated 24.01.2019 in I.A No.1020 of 2014 in O.S No.607/2014 by the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

18. The written statement filed in the said suit in O.S No.91 of 2013 is not placed on record to believe that this petitioner Nos.1 to 5 admitted about joint possession and enjoyment of the property. But the respondent herein claimed exclusive right over the property, in the present suit in O.S No.607 of 2014, based on the gift deed referred supra dated 05.02.2009. When the suit was decreed earlier, granting declaration of title in O.S No.7 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, respondent herein became the absolute owner of the property. However, the petitioners herein contended that they are not parties to the said suit. But the suit is filed by M. Reddeppa Reddy, S/o.Reddeppa Reddy (respondent herein) against his father M. Reddeppa Reddy, S/o.Late Rami Reddy. The suit was decreed, declaring that the respondent herein is the owner of the property. The petitioners herein are claiming title through Bayya Reddy, while contending that Bayya Reddy, father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and husband of 3rd petitioner herein. Bayya Reddy claimed only partition in the earlier suit in O.S No.91 of 2013, but it is not known, whether the suit is decreed or not and no 9 MSM, J documentary proof is produced before the trial or appellate courts or before this Court, evidencing disposal of the suit to believe the case of the petitioners herein. When the respondent herein and others were declared as owners of the schedule property, gifted to him by Reddeppa Reddy vide original of Ex.P1 dated 05.02.2009, though cancelled by execution of original of Ex.R5 dated 23.09.2010, the cancellation deed become redundant, in view of the decree and judgment in O.S No.7 of 2011, original of Exs.P5 and P6, as on today, the decree in O.S No.7 of 2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle is not yet reversed. When the respondent herein and others are declared as owners of the property, by a competent court, having jurisdiction, the same is binding on the parties thereto, since the decree for declaration is a decree in personem not in rem. Section 35 of The Specific Relief Act, made it clear that the decree in a suit for declaration is binding on the parties to the suit or the persons claiming through the parties to the suit, but not on the third parties. The petitioners before this Court, claiming that the property was purchased with the joint family nucleus by M. Reddeppa Reddy, father of respondent and grandfather of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, but whether it was acquired with the joint family nucleus or not cannot be decided at this stage and even in the earlier suit in O.S No.7 of 2011, no such plea was raised by Reddeppa Reddy. The court is required to decide all these questions in the pending suit in O.S No.91 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. Hence, I am not inclined to record any finding, as to the source of acquisition of suit schedule property, in view of the limited scope of enquiry in the present revision, leaving it open to the parties, to raise such plea before the competent court i.e. in O.S No.91 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.