Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 373 (TS)

Gogu Chepuru Vasundhara v. Chepuru Rama Devi

2025-04-22

P.SREE SUDHA, T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : P. Sree Sudha, J. C.M.A.No.18 of 2025 is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.412 of 2022 (O.S.No.33 of 2021 (old)) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda. 2. C.M.A.No.20 of 2025 is filed against the Order dated 12.11.2024 in I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022 (O.S.No.33 of 2021 (old)) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda 3. Appellants herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, against the respondents for appointment of receiver to manage and collect rents from the tenants/kouldars of the plaint schedule-1(A, B and C), 2 (A, B and C)(immovable properties) and also to control the schedule-3 (movable properties). The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the material on record dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants have preferred C.M.A.No.18 of 2025. 4. Appellants herein have also filed an application vide I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, against the respondents, for grant of ad-injunction restraining the respondents not to alienate the suit schedule properties to third parties. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, partly allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants have preferred C.M.A.No.20 of 2025. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants stated that appellants herein are the natural daughters of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is their elder sister. Respondent No.1 and late Ayodhya Ramaiah had four daughters and one son by name Harikiran. While Harikiran was pursuing Engineering Degree, died in a road accident occurred on 07.07.1999 and Ayodhya Ramaiah had also died intestate on 19.03.2020. Thereafter, appellants and respondents No.1 and 2 constituted a joint family of Ayodhya Ramaiah, as such appellants herein have filed a suit vide O.S.No.412 of 2022, for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share. Appellants after the death of their father, requested their mother and elder sister, who are respondents No.1 and 2, for partition of the joint family properties, since the respondents No.1 and 2 are not disclosing the income/rents being collected on the suit schedule properties. Respondent No.2 has taken the respondent No.1 completely under her control and trying to grab the joint family properties. Respondent No.2 has taken the respondent No.1 completely under her control and trying to grab the joint family properties. As there is no positive response from respondent No.2, appellants issued legal notice on 10.12.2020 and respondents No.1 and 2 gave reply notice on 24.12.2020, by disputing certain properties and by admitting certain properties. 6. It is also stated that Late Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1 have adopted the son of respondent No.2, who is respondent No.3 herein, as their son on 22.12.1999 and they have executed and registered the adoption deed on 09.08.2001, hence he is also entitled for equal share and requested the appellants to wait till the first death anniversary of their father. In the meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a Caveat Petition against the appellants herein on 07.01.2021. Appellants have issued reply notice on 12.02.2021, denying the adoption of respondent No.3 by Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1, and demanded for alleged copy of the adoption deed, but it was not furnished to them. When respondents No.2 and 3 were trying to alienate the properties, appellants have filed the suit vide O.S.No.33 of 2021 on 20.04.2021, for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants further stated that there are only five coparceners i.e., petitioners No.1 to 3 and respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 was already getting monthly pension of around Rs.70,000/- and therefore, she was not dependent on anybody. Respondent No.1 never shared any information as to the expenditure incurred or the incomes derived from the properties as rents, lease amounts, etc., and also the amounts received on account of Gratuity, PF, Insurance, etc., of Late Ayodhya Ramaiah. Appellants after their marriage joined with their husbands and living away from the parents, but after the demise of Ayodhya Ramaiah, respondent No.2 joined with the respondent No.1 and living in the house of respondent No.1 for a long time, as such appellants filed an application vide I.A.No.142 of 2023 (Old I.A.No.301 of 2021) for appointment of receiver to prevent misuse/mismanagement of the funds and they gave the details of the properties standing in the name of their parents. He also stated that on enquiry with the tenants, appellants came to know that Rs.52,92,000/- per annum was collecting from them as rents from house properties in Hanamkonda and Hyderabad and Rs.5,47,500/- per annum was collecting from the Agricultural lands by the respondents and tenants have also deposited an amount of Rs.23,54,000/- with the respondents No.1 and 2 initially. Respondents No.2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that property at Sl.No.2 of the plain schedule Plot No.436C is a joint property of Late Ayodhya Ramaiah and respondent No.1, but respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed vide document No.15321 of 2022, transferred the said property in favour of respondent No.3, during the pendency of the suit and also admitted that they are not receiving any rents or deposits from the tenants and at the same time opposed the appointment of receiver to collect the rents. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the relief of appointing receiver is a purely discretionary relief. The trial Court erroneously observed that some of the properties were in the name of the brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah as they were not partitioned between them and as respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not earning members, certain properties were transferred by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3, which demonstrated the fraudulent conduct of respondents and likely to cause imminent danger to the properties. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 9. Parties hereinafter are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.412 of 2022. 10. Initially, O.S.No.412 of 2022 was filed by plaintiffs, who are the daughters of defendant No.1 against the defendant No.1 and another sister i.e., defendant No.2 and her son. They have also added the brother of their father as party to the suit as per I.A.No.36 of 2024. The brief averments of the plaint are that Ayodhya Ramaiah died intestate on 19.03.2020 and he has four daughters and one son namely Harikiran, who met with road accident and died on 07.07.1999. The late Ayodhya Ramaiah owned and possessed agricultural lands, housing properties and also other movable properties including liquid cash, jewellery, house hold articles, vehicles, etc. Plaintiff No.1 took care of her mother after the death of their father, as such she filed suit for partition of 1/5 th share to each of them. The late Ayodhya Ramaiah owned and possessed agricultural lands, housing properties and also other movable properties including liquid cash, jewellery, house hold articles, vehicles, etc. Plaintiff No.1 took care of her mother after the death of their father, as such she filed suit for partition of 1/5 th share to each of them. Defendant No.2 after the death of their brother Harikiran, influenced their parents. It is also stated that plaintiff No.2 married one of her relatives’ family member, but it was not accepted by their parents at the behest of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 tried to alienate part of the suit schedule properties situated at Paidipally (V), Raghavendra Nagar, to third parties. When plaintiffs questioned the same, defendant No.2 denied the same. Thereafter, when plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit properties, defendant No.2 postponed the same on one or other pretext. 11. The said Ayodhya Ramaiah worked as Regional Deputy Director (R.D.D), and died due to Cancer on 19.03.2020. While he was suffering from Cancer, plaintiffs particularly plaintiff No.1 rendered their services. The defendant No.1 is a senior citizen and an ordinary house hold women. She is not in a position to take decisions independently and she was in the clutches of defendant No.2 and her son defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 is making illegal attempts to sell away the estate of Ayodhya Ramaiah and also to knock away the movable and immovable properties without the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs and their mother and defendants No.2 and 3 are supported by the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. All the properties are ancestral properties/self acquired properties, purchased by Ayodhya Ramaiah. Though some of the properties were purchased by their father, they were registered in the name of Hindu Undivided Family members/Coparcener including defendants, as per the advice of Purohits/Vasthu Pandits. They are only the name lenders, but they have no exclusive right over the joint family properties. However, all the daughters are the members of Hindu Joint Family and legal heirs of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The defendant No.2, her husband and their son are collecting rents from the shops/shopping complexes, houses and also from agricultural lands, but failed to disclose the annual income to the legitimate share holders and now they are trying to transfer the same in the name of defendant No.3 or to the third parties. The defendant No.2, her husband and their son are collecting rents from the shops/shopping complexes, houses and also from agricultural lands, but failed to disclose the annual income to the legitimate share holders and now they are trying to transfer the same in the name of defendant No.3 or to the third parties. Defendant No.2 has also renamed the name of her son as ‘Rohit Harikiran’ and thus requested for 1/5 th share in each of the properties. 12. In the written statement filed by the defendants they denied all the material allegations and stated that the properties listed in 1A-Schedules 1 to 6 are not the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah, the property shown at Sl.No.7 is the exclusive property of Ayodhya Ramaiah, the properties shown at Sl.Nos.1 and 3 of the plaint are the exclusive properties of defendant No.1, while the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 4 are the exclusive properties of defendant No.2 and the properties shown at Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint in 1A Schedule properties belongs to one Dhanunjaya, the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property at Sl. No.1, plaint 1-B schedule is the exclusive property of defendant No.1. The properties shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of I-B plaint schedule are the joint properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and defendant No.1. The property shown at Sl.No.1 of 1-C plaint schedule property is the ancestral property and it is not partitioned between Ayodhya Ramaiah and his younger brother Dhanunjaya. The agricultural lands shown in plaint 2A Schedule are the self acquired properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property shown at Sl.No.4 of the plaint schedule 1B is the exclusive property of defendant No.2 and the property shown at Sl.No.5 of the plaint 1B schedule belongs to the husband of defendant No.2. Similarly, the property shown at Sl.No.6 of the plaint 1B schedule belongs to defendant No.3. 13. The properties shown in plaint 1A schedule from Sl.Nos.1 to 6 are not the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and they do not belong to the ancestral joint family properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and are not liable for partition being the exclusive properties of defendants No.1 to 3 and the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. 13. The properties shown in plaint 1A schedule from Sl.Nos.1 to 6 are not the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and they do not belong to the ancestral joint family properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah and are not liable for partition being the exclusive properties of defendants No.1 to 3 and the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The property shown at Sl.No.1 and 3 of the plaint 1A schedule is the property acquired by the defendant No.1 with her own ‘Stridhana’, the property shown at Sl.No.2 and 4 of the 1A plaint schedule belongs to defendant No.2 and the property shown at Sl.Nos.5 and 6 belongs to Dhanunjay, who is the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah. 14. Defendants further stated that Ayodhya Ramaiah was the owner of the property shown at Sl.No.7 of plaint 1A schedule and owner of the properties shown at plaint 1C schedule and plaint 2A schedules respectively and not any other properties shown in plaint 1A, 1B, except the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2, 3 and 3A schedules and was the joint owner along with defendant No.1 in respect of the properties shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties. The defendant No.1 was getting rents from schedule 1(A, B, C) and 2 (A, B, C) properties situated at Hanamkonda, Hyderabad and the properties situated at Annaram Village of Mahaboobabad Revenue Mandal. The defendant No.1 and her husband adopted the defendant No.3, after the death of their son Harikiran and renamed Rohit as Rohit Harikiran, as such he is also entitled for 1/6 th share in the properties of Ayodhya Ramaiah. The gold and silver articles are not the joint family properties and the car shown at Sl.No.2 of plaint 3A schedule stands in the name of defendant No.3. The unspecified gold and silver jewellery are not in the custody of defendants No.1 to 3 and the defendant No.1 got the same from her parents as ‘Stridhana’. 15. Defendant No.1 has also filed the Counter Claim and it is adopted by defendants No.2 and 3 in toto and rejoinder is filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants also stated that the Chepuru Dhanujaya, who is the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah and Madan Mohan, who is the husband of defendant No.2 are the necessary parties to the suit. 16. 15. Defendant No.1 has also filed the Counter Claim and it is adopted by defendants No.2 and 3 in toto and rejoinder is filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants also stated that the Chepuru Dhanujaya, who is the younger brother of Ayodhya Ramaiah and Madan Mohan, who is the husband of defendant No.2 are the necessary parties to the suit. 16. Now it is for this Court to see whether the receiver is to be appointed for preservation and for protection of properties and for collection of rents? 17. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are daughters of defendant No.1 and their father died in the year 2020 and their brother also died in the road accident in the year 2019, as such plaintiffs filed suit for partition of the properties and they also added the younger brother of their father as defendant No.4, during the pendency of the proceedings. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1, who is the mother, is under the influence of defendants No.2 and 3 and both of them are supported by defendant No.4, as such she could not take the decision independently. She is not accounted for the pensionary benefits after the death of their father and defendants are not showing accounts for the rents received from the houses and agricultural lands and thus the properties are to be protected from the influence of defendants No.2 to 4. Therefore, plaintiffs sought for appointment of receiver. 18. Admittedly, properties are pertaining to the same family. Defendant No.1 stated that after the death of her husband, she was managing the properties with the assistance of defendant No.4, who was younger brother of their husband. She has also filed the counter claim against the plaintiffs. She further stated that she was residing independently and not with defendant No.2 and she was not influenced by them. Therefore, until and unless it was established by the plaintiffs that there was wastage of pilferage of the properties, receiver cannot be appointed. The trial Court referred so many Judgments, in which it was clearly laid down that receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of receiver cannot be resorted lightly without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court referred so many Judgments, in which it was clearly laid down that receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of receiver cannot be resorted lightly without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. It was further stated that no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show that anything jeopardizing their interest was happened, showing mismanagement and concealment and wastage of income. After considering the documents filed by both sides and also the legal principles, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. As there is no illegality or infirmity in the Order of the trial Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said Order and accordingly C.M.A.No.18 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed. 19. Regarding C.M.A.No.20 of 2025, the trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, observed that plaintiffs are entitled for injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating the properties in respect of petition schedule 2A, 2B and 2C properties and Sl.No.7 of Schedule 1A and Sl.Nos.2 and 3 of Schedule 1B properties. Admittedly, the suit filed for partition is pending between the parties and the details of the properties were furnished by the plaintiffs in a tabular form and contended that some of the properties were disposed of by defendant No.2 and her husband during the pendency of the suit and also prior to filing of the suit, as such they sought for relief of injunction. The trial Court mentioned in detail regarding the properties in whose name they are and observed that whether the properties pertains to the Hindu Undivided Family of Ayodhya Ramaiah or not will be decided in a detailed trial and considering the admission of the defendants, injunction Order was granted only against some of the properties. As the suit is still pending and the injunction application was filed during the pendency of the proceedings, the trial Court considering all the aspects rightly allowed the application in part and this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the said Order and accordingly C.M.A.No.20 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.142 of 2023 and I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, both dated 12.11.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. In the result, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.142 of 2023 and I.A.No.289 of 2021 in O.S.No.412 of 2022, both dated 12.11.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.