Kalli Chitti Babu @ Chittabbai Naidu vs. Thonda Padmavathi
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Interlocutory
Before:
Hon'ble Ahsanuddin Amanullah , Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
Listed On:
4 May 2022
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C.M.A. NO.130 OF 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl.<br>No | DATE | <b>ORDER</b> | OFFICE<br><b>NOTE</b> |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 04.05.2022 | AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J | |
| and | |||
| TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J<br><i>(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)</i> | |||
| Heard Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior | |||
| counsel along with Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned | |||
| counsel for the appellant. | |||
| 2. The present appeal is directed against the | |||
| order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Additional | |||
| Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in I.A.No.33 of 2021 in | |||
| $O.S.No.19$ of 2021 by which an order for | |||
| maintaining <i>status quo</i> as was prayed for by the | |||
| plaintiffs-respondents no.1 to 4 herein, has been | |||
| granted in their favour. | |||
| 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant | |||
| submitted that the appellant along with | |||
| respondents no.5 to $8$ , who were the defendants, | |||
| because of the urgency of the matter, as power | |||
| on behalf of the respondents no.5 to 8 could not | |||
| be obtained in time, they have been arrayed as | |||
| respondents no.5 to 8 and respondents no.5 and $\frac{1}{2}$ | |||
| 6 will be supporting the case of the appellant, | |||
| being the children. | |||
| It was submitted that the vendor of the<br>4. | |||
| husband of the respondent no.1 and the father of | |||
| the appellant were brothers and the ancestral | |||
| property was equally divided among them to an | |||
| extent of Ac.6.44 cents each by the grandfather. | |||
| It was contended that initially the entire property | |||
| of Ac.12.88 cents fell in survey No.153/1, but | |||
| later on, it was divided into survey $No.153/1A$ | |||
| No.153/1B. Learned<br>and<br>survey<br>counsel | |||
| submitted that survey no. $153/1B$ has an area of | |||
| Ac. $8.97$ cents, whereas survey No. $153/1A$ has an |
area of Ac.3.91 cents. Thus, it was contended that the land in survey No.153/1A was completely in the share of the appellant, whereas the land belonging to the vendor of the husband of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 was only to an extent of Ac.6.44 cents in survey No.153/1B. It was further contended that in the recital of the sale deed, an area of Ac.9.35 cents has been mentioned, which is beyond the land owned by the vendor, while executing the sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that respondents no.1 to 4 had filed I.A. No.33 of 2021 seeking injunction restraining the appellant and respondents no.5 and 6 from interfering in the possession and the Court has erroneously ordered for maintaining of status quo without appreciating that the appellant along with respondents no.5 and 6 have been in possession and are continuing in possession and in support of which copies of relevant extracts from the revenue records were filed.
-
Issue notice to respondents no.1 to 4, 7 and 8 through personal mode and proof of service be filed by 14.06.2022, in the appeal as well as in I.A.No.1 of 2022 which has been filed seeking stay of all further proceedings in the said appeal and I.A.No.2 of 2022 which has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents no.1 to 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of appellant and respondents no.5 and 6.
-
The matter be listed on 21.06.2022.
_________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
MP
_____________________________________ (TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J)
2