Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard the learned Counsel on record.

The substantial questions of law, ,which had been pointed out in this second appeal, already had been referred to above. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant as shown in O.S. No. 285 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Bapatla, for the purpose of convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit. The Court of first instance in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having considered the issues, examined P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 and marked Exs. B1 to B13 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of appeal - AS No. 64 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, and the lower appellate Court, having observed that the defendant by way of separate suit can protect the interest of Bramhamdam Raghava Rao in the suit schedule property, if so advised, and further observing that she cannot cause any obstruction for the plaintiff to enjoy the suit schedule property, allowed the appeal accordingly. Hence the present second' appeal.

During this period, the father-in-law and husband of the defendant made the life of the defendant miserable and tortured her physically and mentally for their unlawful demands. At last, the defendant lost her patience and got filed the private complaint before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate's Court, Bapatla against her father-in-law Nageswararao and her husband Raghavarao. The Court, on that private complaint, directed the Bapatla Town Police to enquire into the matter and police after investigating registered the case as Crime under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. In that case, charge-sheet was also filed and during the pendency of the case, A.2, the father-in-law of the defendant died and warrant was pending against A.1 who is the husband of the defendant. At that stage, the husband of the defendant went to the house of the plaintiff at Madras and from there itself, he was disappeared. Prior to the marriage of the defendant, the 2nd brother, Hanumantha Rao's whereabouts are not known. So, this defendant is doubting the conduct of the plaintiff as he is the only person can give the answer for disappearance of his two brothers. To grab the shares of the said Hanumantha Rao and Raghavarao, the plaintiff might have get rid of the lives of his two brothers. The defendant is a legally wedded wife of Raghavarao, as such she is a coparcener in Hindu joint undivided family, as such, the defendant is at bounded duty to protect the properties that are to be fell to the share of her husband.

The defendant further submits that the said Bramhamdam Nageswararao, who was the father of the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 105/87 before the Sub-Court, Bapatla, against his brother Bramhamdam Vara Prasad Rao for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds with respect to the suit schedule properties, when that matter is pending, Bramhamdam Nageswararao died on 12.8.1992, after the demise of the said Nageswararao, this defendant filed an I.A. No. 449/94 in OS No. 105/87 under Order I Rule 19(2) CPC for impleading her as a party in the place of her husband Raghavarao and the same is pending before the Sub-Court, Bapatla. The plaintiff also filed a petition for adding LRs., duly mentioning himself as petitioner and the Hanumantha Rao and Raghavarao and his two sisters as the respondents in the petition I.A. No. 1628/92. Since the defendant herein became the coparcener to the Hindu undivided joint family of the plaintiff, no injunction can be granted against the defendant. Therefore, she prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

The lower appellate Court recorded reasons commencing from Paras 11 to 15 and allowed the appeal. Certain admissions in the evidence of P.W. 1 had been referred to and in re-examination this witness, no doubt deposed that about three months back a preliminary decree was passed in O.S. No. 105 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, as prayed for and final decree was pending before the Sub-Court, Bapatla. Further P.W. 1 deposed that his brother Raghava Rao was given separate share in the said suit while passing preliminary decree. Certain submissions were made on the strength of the evidence of P.W. 1 as well.