IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.573 OF 2010 BETWEEN: L.Umamaheswari …APPELLANT. AND L.Kavitha and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.573 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) The appeal is filed against the order in I.A.No. 26 of 2010 in O.S.No. 24 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur.. 2. The appellant herein is the 7th defendant . 3. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule properties. 4. The allegations in the plaint go to show that the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of one late Rajagopal Reddy, who had two wives by name Sharada and Damayanthi and the 1st plaintiff is the daughter through 2nd wife, whereas defendants 6 and 7 are the children through 1st wife. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 3rd defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 are the paternal uncles. The 4th defendant is the grandmother and 5th defendant is the aunt of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed challenging the certain alienations and also for partition. When the matter stood thus, the 7th defendant filed an application under Order.39 Rule.1 of Civil Procedure Code (for short, “CPC”) vide I.A.No.26 of 2010 to restrain the defendants 8 to 28, plaintiffs and the other coparceners to maintain the status-quo possession as on the date under the guise of execution petition delivery proceedings by way of temporary injunction. The allegations in the affidavit go to show that the 7th defendant is entitled for the share and the alienations made by her grandfather are not valid and binding. The agreement in favour of Anjana Reddy and others is not binding. The Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur was pleased to order for delivery of possession in E.P.No.50 of 1996, which was let out to Profit Shoe Company under lease agreement and the defendants 8 to 28 are trying to take delivery of possession under a sale deed and they trying to dispossess the tenants under the pretext of delivery proceedings of the Court. Therefore, injunction may be granted to restrain the defendants 8 to 28 from dispossessing the petitioner and the tenants i.e., Profit Shoe Company by way of illegal eviction. 5. A counter was filed by the respondents contending that defendants 8 to 28 are the legal representatives of one Anjana Reddy and subsequent purchasers. According to the respondents, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of late Venkata Krishna Reddy and it is not at all the joint family property and the earlier partition deed dated 20.12.1971 is very clear. Late Venkata Krishna Reddy entered into an agreement of sale and a suit O.S.No.33 of 1985 was filed and the same was decreed and it has become final. E.P.No.50 of 1996 was also filed, in which the petitioner and other sharers appeared and raised the objections which were over ruled. As against that, C.R.P.No.4416 of 2008 was filed and it was also dismissed by the High Court on 09.04.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner and respondents 3 to 8 preferred a Special Leave Petition in S.L.A.No. (Civil) 21445 of 2009 and it was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. After exhausting all the remedies, the petitioner and respondents 3 to 8 colluded together and filed the false suit. Earlier also respondents 4 and 5 filed partition suits O.S.No.19 of 1986 and O.S.No.20 of 1993 and they were dismissed. The claim that the property was let out to Profit Shoe Company is not tenable. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After considering the material on record, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application and aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. Initially, in C.M.A.M.P.No.1515 of 2010 status-quo orders were granted by this Court and C.M.A.M.P.No. 384 of 2011 is filed to vacate the interim order. 7. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the appellant is entitled for the injunction as prayed for? 2) Whether the refusal of the injunction by the lower Court is legal and sustainable? 8. POINTS: It is to be noted that the 7th defendant, who filed the application for injunction, is indirectly trying to protect the possession of Profit Shoe Company whose objections were earlier over ruled by the Court and the property mentioned in the schedule of this petition is a building. The said property is said to have been sold under the agreement of sale, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.33 of 1985 treating it as the self-acquired property of Venkata Krishna Reddy. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein and other sharers filed objections in E.P.No.50 of 1996 and they were over ruled. The tenant Profit Shoe Company filed objection petition in E.P.No.50 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur and it was dismissed. As against that order, C.R.P.No.835 of 2010 was filed and this Court in its order dated 20.04.2010 dismissed the revision. As against that order, Profit Shoe Company filed Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court in its order date 09.06.2010 passed the following order: “After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the impugned order and the record we find that there is no substance in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be granted nine months time to vacate the premises in question. Thus without considering the merits of the matter we deem it fit and proper to grant nine months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and hand over peaceful and vacant possession to respondent Nos. 1 to 21. The petitioner would also furnish an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to this Court within a period of one month from today mentioning therein that he shall handover peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent Nos. 1 to 21 within a period of nine months from today and would also pay the arrears of rent, if any, and would continue to pay monthly rent by 15th of each month, failing thereof, the respondent-decree-holders will be at liberty to execute the decree forthwith. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly”. 9. Therefore, it is quite clear that the so-called tenant of the appellant herein has given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that he will vacate the premises. It is to be noted by seeking injunction in this application to protect the possession of Profit Shoe Company, the appellant cannot be allowed to subvert and defeat the order of the Supreme Court. The question as to whether the property is joint family property or not and as to whether the alienation is binding or not can be decided in the main suit. A lawful decree has been obtained in O.S.No.33 of 1985 by the defendants 8 to 28 and it cannot be defeated by virtue of injunction sought for by the appellant herein and if at all there are any equities and if it is to be held that the property is a joint family property, they can be worked out during the final decree proceedings in the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur, has rightly dismissed the application and particularly in view of the orders of the Supreme Court and the undertaking given by the tenant, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal has to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the other applications are closed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and C.M.A.M.P.No.384 of 2011 and C.M.A.M.P.No.1515 of 2010 also are ordered to be closed as the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:30-04-2011. INL