Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palle Krishna Reddy Died vs P.Suramma on 23 February, 2021
Bench: B Krishna Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT#--
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWE 3M
: PRESENT: is
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
SECOND APPEAL No. 54 of 2021
Between :-
Palle Krishna Reddy (Died) By LRs.
.P. Suramma, W/o. Palle Krishna Reddy
Palle Nagabushan Reddy, S/o. Palle Krishna Reddy
.P. Ramesh Reddy, S/o. Palle Krishna Reddy
....Appellants/1* respondent/Plaintiff.
1
2
3
AND
1.Chilakuru Ranga Swamy, S/o. C. Narayanappa, R/o. D.No. 6-2-179-1,
Kovvur Nagar, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District.
2.Shaik Imam Shareef Sab, S/o. Shaik Rasool Sab, R/o. D.No.1847,
Muddigubba Vilage and Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in
the Memo. of grounds file herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal
by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
§C's and ST's cases-cum-VIll Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu passed in
A.S.No 55 of 2016 dated 04.12.2020 and confirm the judgment and decree of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu passed in O.S.No. 260 of 2009 dated
30-06-2016;
L.A. No. 2 of 2021 :
Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to grant Injunction
restraining he respondents from interfering with he plaint schedule property situated
with | RD and SRD of Anantapuramu in the Anantapuramu Mandal, Papampeta Village,
Narayanapuram Panchayat area limits and the property particulars are follows :
Govt. Wet Sy.No. 90/10 out of it Ac.0.04 Hec. 0.016 ,Bounded by :
East : Road; South : Plot sold to Nagarathnamma in the same Sy No., extent
Ac.0.08, West : Scavenger Road in Sy.No. 90/6, North : Plot sold to Rama Swarupa
Reddy in the same SyNo. Extent Ac.0.03 cents, , pending disposal of S.A.No. 54 of
2021 on the file of the High Court.
The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memo of
grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri O. Manohar Reddy,
Advocate for the Appellants, the Court made the following
ORDER :-
"Admit.
Notice to the respondents.
The 2"? Appeal arises against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.55 of 2016
on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trail of SC and ST Cases - cum - VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu dated 04.12.2020 reversing the
Judgment and decree in 0.S.No.260 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Ananthapur, dated 30.07.2016.
The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff
who was the 1°* respondent in the lower appellate Court. The respondents herein
are the appellants before the lower appellate Court and the defendants in the
suit.
Contd. .2...
2? - %
The plaintiff initiated the action in 0.S.No.260 of 2009 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur seeking declaration of title and
permanent injunction against the defendants in interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Upon
contesting of the matter, the Trial Court decreed the suit vide its Judgment dated
30.07.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred A.S.No.55 of 2016
on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trail of SC and ST Cases - cum - VIII
Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Upon hearing the matter, the lower
appellate Court allowed the said appeal reversing the Judgment and decree of the
trial Court vide its Judgment dated 04.12.2020. Assailing the same, the legal
representatives of the deceased plaintiff came in 2™¢ appeal before this Court
raising substantial question of law as follows.
1. 'Having regard to the fact that the land was situated in an estate and
the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act are applicable and the
settlement patta was granted in favour of the vendor of the appellant
and the same is a title to the property, whether the lower appellate
court acted legally in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish
his right title and possession over the suit property?.
2. In the absence of any specific denial with regard to the title of the
plaintiff, whether the lower appellate court acted legally in holding
that the plaintiff has failed to prove title to the property on the basis
of the recitals in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2?
3. Whether the appreciation and finding of the lower appellate Court in
reversing the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse?
In view of the above said circumstances, there shall be an order of status-
quo as on today with respect to the suit schedule property until further orders.
The learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to take out personal
notice to the respondents and file proof of service in the Registry, within a period
of three(3) weeks from today.
List the matter after four(4) weeks."
Sd/-B.NarsingaRao
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SEC' eye rtp
/ TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER
To
1.The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs' and ST's cases-cum-VIll
Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.
2.The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.
3.Chilakuru Ranga Swamy, S/o. C. Narayanappa, R/o. D.No. 6-2-179-1,
Kovvur Nagar, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District. .
4.Shaik Imam Shareef Sab, S/o. Shaik Rasool Sab, R/o. D.No.1847,
Muddigubba Vilage and Mandal, Anantapuramu District.
(Addressee Nos. 3 and 4 BY RPAD)
5.One CC to Sri O. MANOHAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC)
6.One Spare Copy.
TKK
HIGH COURT
BKM.J
DATED: 23-02-2021.
ORDER
S.A.No. 54 of 2021
STATUS QUO
Use eciAL Ce aX,
fi? a << aX
\
if vA
ie ay
woo 9 MAR 2021 a
Ae Sy
Ns kee
SD OL
"SE 3s PATC were
Tce
