CPC, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1(r) — Interim injunction — Alienation and alteration of property — Permissible scope of maintenance — Where purchasers of the property (defendants 7–10) undertook not to alienate or alter the suit property but only to carry out maintenance and minor improvements for habitability, the Trial Court granted injunction restraining alienation and structural changes. Held, no interference warranted; the injunction does not bar routine maintenance. Clarified that defendants may carry out repairs and upkeep without claiming equities pending disposal of the suit. Interlocutory orders — Equitable clarification by appellate court — Where the Trial Court’s order already protects the property from alienation or structural change, the High Court may merely clarify its scope to avoid hardship and ensure preservation of property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEALS Nos. 86 & 90 of 2025

(Common Order)

Between:
Eddula Venkata Swaroop Kumar Reddy and Others … Appellants/Respondents 7–10/Defendants

And
Dr. Devireddy Sridhar Reddy and Others … Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Counsel for Appellants: Sri V. Nitesh
Counsel for Respondents: Sri Mujtahid Hussain

HEADNOTES

CPC, 1908 — Order 43 Rule 1(r) — Interim injunction — Alienation and alteration of property — Permissible scope of maintenance —
Where purchasers of the property (defendants 7–10) undertook not to alienate or alter the suit property but only to carry out maintenance and minor improvements for habitability, the Trial Court granted injunction restraining alienation and structural changes. Held, no interference warranted; the injunction does not bar routine maintenance. Clarified that defendants may carry out repairs and upkeep without claiming equities pending disposal of the suit.

Interlocutory orders — Equitable clarification by appellate court —
Where the Trial Court’s order already protects the property from alienation or structural change, the High Court may merely clarify its scope to avoid hardship and ensure preservation of property.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 29 of 2022 before the II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, seeking declaration of rights and injunction regarding the petition schedule property.

2. They filed I.A. Nos. 1290 and 1291 of 2024, seeking (i) restraint from changing physical features, and (ii) restraint from alienation or dealing with the property pending suit.

3. The Trial Court, by orders dated 03.01.2025, granted temporary injunctions restraining defendants (including appellants/respondents 7–10) from alienating, mortgaging, or altering the property.

4. The appellants filed C.M.A. Nos. 86 & 90 of 2025, contending that they had purchased the property for residence and business use, and only intended repairs and maintenance, not alienation or demolition.

5. Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the injunction does not prohibit reasonable maintenance, only alienation and material alteration.

COURT’S REASONING

• The record shows appellants admitted ownership and occupation for residential and shop purposes and undertook not to alienate the property.

• The Trial Court’s order, though restraining alienation, does not prevent necessary maintenance or repairs to preserve the property.

• The High Court clarified that upkeep and non-structural improvements are permissible to maintain the property’s usability, provided they do not change the physical features or prejudice the pending litigation.

• Regarding I.A. No. 1290/2024 (C.M.A. No. 90/2025), the injunction restraining alteration of physical features was appropriate and requires no modification.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

Held:

• Orders dated 03.01.2025 in I.A. Nos. 1290 & 1291 of 2024 are affirmed.

• Defendants (appellants) may carry out necessary maintenance and repairs to keep the property intact but shall not alienate, transfer, or materially alter the same pending suit.

• No equities shall be claimed by them on that account.

• Both appeals are accordingly disposed of without costs.

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

— B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
— A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

Date: 24.04.2025

Ratio Capsule (for digest index):

“Temporary injunction — Restraint on alienation and structural alteration — Routine maintenance permitted — Injunction clarified, not modified.”