IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 62 of 2025
Date: 03 April 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan and Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
Case Title
Degala Sambaiah and Another … Appellants / Defendants 1 & 5
versus
Degala Srinivasa Rao and Another … Respondents / Plaintiffs
(Respondents 3–5 arrayed as Defendants 3–5 before the trial court)
Counsel
-
For Appellants: Sri N. Sriram Murthy
-
For Respondents 1 & 2: Sri Venkateshwarlu Yarram Reddy
-
For Respondents 3 to 5: None appeared
HEADNOTES
Civil Procedure Code — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 — Temporary injunction — Scope of interference in appeal
When the trial court grants a blanket injunction over the entire joint property without examining the respective shares of co-owners or considering counters filed, the High Court may remit the matter for de novo enquiry to ensure due opportunity and balanced interim protection.
Partition suit — Common layout land developed into plots — Injunction against alienation
In suits for partition of land developed under a single approved layout, an injunction restraining alienation may be necessary to protect the integrity of the layout and the eventual allotment by metes and bounds.
However, such injunction must be proportionate to the plaintiffs’ share and based on a fair hearing to all defendants.
Appellate procedure — Duty to remand
Where the trial court failed to notice a counter-affidavit on record and disposed of the interlocutory application ex parte in substance, remand for rehearing with direction to decide within a fixed time is appropriate.
FACTS OF THE CASE
-
The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 74 of 2023 before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur seeking a preliminary decree for partition of joint family land measuring Ac. 3-27 cents (≈ 18,072.96 sq. yds.) in Sy.Nos. 714/1B, 1C, 1D & 1E, Yanamadala Village, Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur District.
-
Plaintiffs claimed 3971.74 sq. yds. as their share.
-
The land had been developed into a residential layout under CRDA L.P.No. 5/2019/GNT dated 20-03-2019.
-
-
In I.A.No. 654 of 2023, the plaintiffs sought temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating or dealing with the entire suit property pending the suit.
-
The trial court (order dated 25-10-2024) granted an injunction over the whole extent, observing that alienations during pendency would complicate partition and prejudice the plaintiffs.
-
Defendants 1 and 5 (present appellants) challenged the order contending—
-
the injunction covered even portions admittedly belonging to defendants;
-
the counter-affidavit filed by 1st defendant was ignored though on record;
-
the court below did not conduct a proper enquiry nor mark any documents;
-
5th defendant (2nd appellant) owned Ac. 0-75 cents in Sy.No. 714/1B, laid plots Nos. 34–50 with her own funds, and had not executed any sale deeds.
-
-
Respondents 1 & 2 argued that all parties were co-owners under one layout, and unless restrained, defendants might alienate parcels affecting roads, open spaces and park areas, making future partition impossible.
REASONS FURNISHED BY THE HIGH COURT
-
Non-consideration of counter: The record showed that the 1st defendant’s counter was in the material papers, yet the trial court’s order stated “no counter filed.” This procedural lapse required correction.
-
Extent of injunction: The trial court granted injunction for the entire property though the plaintiffs’ claim was limited to 3971.74 sq. yds. Without ascertaining respective shares, such blanket restraint was unjustified.
-
Purpose of injunction: Since the suit is one for partition of developed land, protection of the property from indiscriminate alienation is justified—but it must be done after full hearing and enquiry into each party’s share and ownership.
-
Need for de novo hearing: Given the ex parte nature of the impugned order and lack of proper enquiry, the matter should be remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration, allowing parties to file additional affidavits, counters and documents.
-
Interim balance: To preserve the subject matter pending such rehearing, the High Court directed status quo to be maintained regarding the suit property.
CONCLUSION / FINAL ORDER
-
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
-
The order of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur dated 25-10-2024 in I.A.No. 654 of 2023 is set aside.
-
The trial court shall re-hear the I.A. afresh, permitting all parties to file additional affidavits, counters and supporting documents.
-
A de novo enquiry shall be conducted and appropriate orders passed on merits, uninfluenced by the earlier order.
-
Pending such disposal, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the suit property.
-
The I.A. shall be disposed of within three (3) months from receipt of the High Court’s order.
-
Both parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal.
-
No order as to costs.
-
-
All pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
When a trial court, in an application for temporary injunction within a partition suit, fails to consider existing counters or the limited share of the plaintiffs and grants a sweeping restraint over the whole property, the proper course for the appellate court is to remand for de novo enquiry ensuring fair opportunity to all co-owners. Pending such rehearing, status quo must be maintained to safeguard the property.
Held: Appeal allowed in part; impugned order set aside; I.A. remitted for fresh consideration within three months; status quo to continue meanwhile; no costs.
