HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.153 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
24.03.2022 BSB, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The suit was filed for permanent injunction.
The suit was dismissed, among other grounds,
that the survey number and boundaries of the
property covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not
tallying with the plaint schedule property and
further that the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2
under which the said property said to have been
assigned, are not proved though they were
marked, subject to objection. In appeal, the
suit was decreed by allowing the appeal basing
on the admission in the written statement about
the possession of the plaintiffs as the main
consideration in a suit for injunction is
possession. Having aggrieved by the judgment
in the appeal, the defendants preferred the
second appeal alleging that the admission in the
written statement is improperly applied to
decree the suit and the documentary evidence is
also wrongly appreciated and raised the
following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the appellate court is
justified in reversing the well
considered judgment of the trial court
in dismissing the suit for permanent
injunction having arrived at a
conclusion that on careful analysis of
the evidence on record, the plaintiff
who propounded the theory of title
under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and
consequential possession, utterly failed
to establish his title and possession
over the plaint schedule property.
2. Whether the appellate court is
justified in giving a finding that, the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 was in
possession of the plaint schedule property relying on the pleadings in the written statement of defendant No.2 in suit when the documents Exs.A.1 to A.15 relied by the plaintiff speaks that the plaint scheduled land situated in Sy.No.21/1 is a different from the land shown in the Ex.A.1 which was given on lease to the plaintiff.
3. Whether the appellate court is justified in giving a finding that, the plaintiff is in possession of the land simply relying on the pleading of defendant No.2 in his written statement which is not a sworn statement as evidence without taking into consideration Ex.A.2 patta alleged to be issued by the defendant No.2 which is not legally valid as the said document does not contain the seal of the authority who issued which is of weak evidence to accept the possession of the plaintiff.
4. Whether the appellate court is justified in giving a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule assigned land situated in Sy.No.2/1 of Gollalapadu village, when the documentary evidences of Exs.A.1 to A.15 relied on by the plaintiff speaks against the plaintiff when the land in Ex.A.1 pertaining to Sy.No.21 showing entirely different boundaries compared to the land shown in suit scheduled property, when the Ex.A.2 does not contain the seal of issuing authority, when the Exs.A.4 and A.5 speaks the land shown in the 0065hibits is private land not an assigned land as alleged by the plaintiff and when the Exs.A.7 to Ex.A.13 which of cist receipts does not show the survey number of the lands shown in exhibits.
5. Whether the appellate court below justified in allowing the appeal granting relief of permanent injunction by admitting statement of defendant No.2 in written statement without any proof of evidence or material to prove the same
6. Whether the appellate court is justified in granting relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff when the plaintiff utterly failed to establish his title possession over the plaint schedule property in view of various discrepancies and inconsistency in evidence.
7. Whether the appellate court is justified in giving a finding relying on the principle that 'the concept of boundaries prevail over the survey number and extent from any confusion does not arise as boundaries are clear' when the boundaries of the land shown in the plaint scheduled property is different from the land shown in the Ex.A.1.
In such view of the matter, it is a fit case to admit the appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 20.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to take out personal service of notice to the respondents through RPAD and file proof thereof.
_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J PNV