temporary injunction= for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.47 of 2012 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit. The trial Court has granted injunction- By order, dated 07-01-2013, the learned District Judge, Anantapur allowed the said C.M.A. and set aside the order of injunction.- the school records produced by him do not show that he is the adopted son of Pedda Bandeppa, and that therefore, he failed to establish his prima-facie case. - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which contains the doctrine of lis pendens and held that even in the absence of injunction, the interests of the petitioner are secured.

CRP 462 / 2013

CRPSR 2610 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT K. VEERESH, ANANTHAPUR DIST   VS K. SIDDA LINGAMMA, ANANTHAPUR DIST PET.ADV. : SRINIVAS RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  ANANTAPUR

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

Civil Revision Petition No. 462 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between:

K. Veeresh                                                              .. Petitioner

And

K. Sidda Lingamma                                              .. Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner      :  Mr. K. Srinivas

Counsel for the respondent       :  ---

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated
07-01-2013, in C.M.A. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Anantapur.

  The petitioner herein has filed O.S. No. 45 of 2012 in the court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.  In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.47 of 2012 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit.  The trial Court has granted injunction.  Assailing the same, the respondent herein filed C.M.A. No. 23 of 2012 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Anantapur.  By order, dated 07-01-2013, the learned District Judge, Anantapur allowed the said C.M.A. and set aside the order of injunction.

I have heard Mr. K. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

 In his order, the learned District Judge has discussed the prima-facie case of the petitioner and found that the school records produced by him do not show that he is the adopted son of Pedda Bandeppa, and that therefore, he failed to establish his prima-facie case.  The learned District Judge has also referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which contains the doctrine of lis pendens and held that even in the absence of injunction, the interests of the petitioner are secured.  Having carefully considered the reasoning of the learned District Judge,
I am convinced that the order under revision does not suffer from any jurisdictional error requiring interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, C.R.P.M.P. No.603 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

                                                              _____________________

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

February 21, 2013.

Mgr/Am