01Facts
The petitioners filed O.S. No. 457/2026 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents, relying on shares allotted to them in final decree proceedings in FDP No. 20/2006.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 1–2They asserted that they possessed the suit property and that the respondents were attempting to dispossess them and create third-party interests.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 1–2The petitioners filed I.A. Nos. II and III under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 1–2The Trial Court’s common order dated 11 September 2026 issued notice on those applications.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 1–2The petitioners challenged that order in these connected writ petitions.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 1–202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court should intervene, before the Trial Court decided the pending injunction applications, to preserve possession and title in the suit property.
pp. 13–14 · ¶ 2–5ii.2. Whether the Trial Court should be directed to decide the pending applications within a specified period.
p. 15 · ¶ 503Law Applied
The petitioners’ applications before the Trial Court were under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide the procedural basis for seeking interim injunctions and related orders.
p. 6, 12The writ petitions invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
p. 6, 12The Court applied the principle that interim protection may be warranted to preserve the subject matter of pending applications where dispossession or creation of third-party interests could defeat their purpose.
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 4–5No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the Trial Court had recorded the plaintiffs’ claim of possession pursuant to the final decree proceedings, and that the record supported that claim.
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 4–5Given that the dispute arose between family members involved in partition proceedings, the Court considered that dispossession or creation of third-party interests before the injunction applications were decided could render those applications infructuous.
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 4–5It therefore found limited intervention appropriate, without deciding the merits of the pending applications.
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 4–505Holding
The writ petitions were disposed of.
p. 15 · ¶ 5 and orderThe Court directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and title to the suit schedule property until the Trial Court considers I.A. Nos. II and III.
p. 15 · ¶ 5 and orderIt further directed the Trial Court to expedite and dispose of those applications within two months from the next hearing date, 5 November 2026.
p. 15 · ¶ 5 and orderOriginal Court PDF
SRI MUNIRAJUvsSMT SUSHEELAMMA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
