Amudala Mogilamma Died vs Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3273 AP

            HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                     MAIN CASE No.A.S.No.2951 of 2000
                                  PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                           Office
                                           ORDER

No      DATE                                                                  Note
      31.08.2021 RRR, J

I.A.No.2 of 2002 (CMP No.4269 of 2002)

This application, filed for condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the LR application, is condoned for the reasons set out in the affidavit.

_________ RRR, J I.A.No.3 of 2002 (CMP No.4270 of 2002)

This application, filed for setting aside the abatement of the above appeal due to the death of respondent No.3, is allowed for the reasons set out in the affidavit.

_________ RRR, J I.A.No.1 of 2021 In A.S.No.2951 of 2000

The appellants had filed O.S.No.242 of 1995 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for a declaration to continue in possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property, which is said to be in an extent of Ac.5.73 cents and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' property.

This suit was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 14.08.2000. Thereafter, the appellants have filed the present appeal. On 14.11.2000, this Court had granted status quo obtaining as on that day with regard to the plaint schedule property, till the disposal of the appeal.

The vacate petition filed against this order was rejected on 28.10.2004 and the interim order granted by this Court on 14.11.2000 was made absolute.

The appellants have now filed the present application on the ground that respondents 4 to 6 are constructing a compound wall including the plaint 'A' schedule property despite the directions of this Court and that police protection is required to enforce the directions of this Court.

Respondents 4 to 6 have taken the stand that various encroachments are taking place in relation to the plaint 'A' schedule property and the wall was being constructed to protect the said land from encroachments, pending the appeal.

Heard Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

In view of the fact that the land in question is situated within Tirupati Town, it would be for the benefit of both sides if the said compound wall is constructed.

However, neither party shall make any other construction in plaint 'A' schedule property and the said land shall be left as vacant land, pending disposal of the appeal.

                                               _________
Issue C.C. in 2 days                             RRR, J


                 A.S.No.2951 of 2000

         Post on 06.09.2021.

                                               _________
                                                 RRR, J
Js.