HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.246 OF 2022
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
NOTE
No.
DATE ORDER
3. 29.06.2022
KSR,J
S.A.NO.246 OF 2022
The plaintiff in O.S.No.300 of 2013 on the file of the Court of III
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is the appellant herein. He filed the
said suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
It is contended by the plaintiff/appellant that originally the suit schedule property belongs to his grand-father-Penchala Reddy and after his demise the property was inherited by the father of the plaintiff-late Raghava Reddy and his brother Sivarami Reddy. The share of Raghava Reddy was settled down in favour of the plaintiff in or about 1978. The share of Sivarami Reddy was inherited by his only son-Doraswamy Reddy who in- turn settled the same in favour of the plaintiff in exchange of lands between them around in the year 1980. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the appellant, he filed the suit. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. After an elaborate trial, the trial court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction. On an appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the following substantial question of law, "Whether the lower appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by misreading the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff?" ADMIT the Second Appeal.
_________________
K.SURESH REDDY,J
Sl. OFFICE
NOTE
No.
DATE ORDER
I.A.NO.2 OF 2022
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that there was no interim order in favour of the respondents/defendants during the pendency of Appeal. As such, right through the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, there shall be an interim injunction, as prayed for, till disposal of the Second Appeal.
Notice.
_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J TSNR