HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.458 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No.
Date ORDER NOTE
01 14.10.2022
SRS, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the delay of 133 days in representing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, this petition is ordered.
___________ SRS, J S.A.No.458 of 2022 Plaintiffs in the suit filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2020 in A.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 in O.S.No.445 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
Suit O.S.No.445 of 2011 was filed by plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by laying any pathway without any manner of right in the 2 lands of plaintiffs.
Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.4 of 2015 and the same was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18.12.2020. Hence, the present Second Appeal is filed.
Heard.
ADMIT.
The following substantial questions of law, arise for consideration, in the second appeal:
1) Whether the Courts below followed the ratio laid down the Apex Court in Shri Raja Durga Singh of Solan Vs. Tholu (AIR 1963 SC 361) that "where there is conflict between prior and subsequent entries, the latter entries must prevail"?
2) Whether the Courts below properly perceived Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 i.e. relief of injunction can be granted even if no declaratory relief is expressly prayed as laid down in 1999 (2) ALT 192?
___________ SRS,J PVD