Dr. L. Chandramma & Others vs M. Lakshmamma

H.P. Sandesh, J

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

This appeal is filed against the order dated 04.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6034/2021 on the file of the XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City allowing the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C, wherein the Trial Court has restrained the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever till the final disposal of the suit.

While considering the application, the Trial Court has also taken note of the pleadings of the defendants and the defendants in their pleadings in the written statement categorically contend that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that, when there is an admission on the part of the defendants that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties belongs to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 and the status Smt. Akkayyamma as daughter of late Sri Mysoorappa and Smt. Muniyamma is denied by the plaintiff, it is only after full fledged trial of the suit, the quantum of share of the plaintiff in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties can be ascertained. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the same is suffice at this stage to hold that the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9, including other three sisters of defendant Nos.7 to 9. Therefore, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that, though claim is made in respect of the 6 acres of land in the plaint, the available property is only 2 acres, 6 guntas. Hence, order passed by the Trial Court restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties is erroneous and the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted since, the defendants themselves in the written statement categorically admitted that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and whether the total extent of 6 acres is available or 2 acres, 6 guntas is available, as contended by the appellants is a matter of trial.

When prima facie, there is an admission on the part of the defendants in the written statement that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and relief is also sought in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.