Syed Gali Shahid vs Challa Koti Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 26 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

              SECOND APPEAL No.271 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

The present Second Appeal arises against the

judgment dated 30.01.2019 in A.S.No.36 of 2015 on the file

of the Court of the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge

at Nandigama, Krishna District by confirming the decree and

the judgment dated 01.06.2015 in O.S.No.145 of 2007 on

the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at

Nandigama, Krishna District.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit and

the appellant before the lower appellate Court. The

respondents herein are the defendants in the suit and the

respondents before the lower appellate Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The suit in O.S.No.145 of 2007 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nandigama was filed for

permanent injunction against the defendants, which was

contested by the defendants before the trial Court. The trial

Court framed the issues, which are reflected in the para-5 of

the judgment of the trial Court, as under:

(1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the land belonging to R&B Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants over the plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

(3) To what relief?

5. On considering the evidence and the pleadings

before it, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the

plaintiff failed to establish his settled lawful possession over

the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the

suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with no costs.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal

before the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.36 of 2015. The

lower appellate Court while considering the appeal before it,

framed an issue that whether the plaintiff is in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date

of the filing of the suit? After considering the case on merits,

the lower appellate Court also came to a conclusion that the

plaintiff/appellant could not establish the possession over

the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the

suit. Accordingly, lower appellate Court has dismissed the

appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Against

which, the plaintiff/appellant preferred this second appeal

before this Court on the ground that the lower appellate

Court has not framed the issue before considering the

appeal finally.

6. As stated supra, the said contention is not correct

and the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court

considered the case on merits by framing the issues and

dismissed the relief sought for by the plaintiff/appellant

herein.

7. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the

judgments of the Courts below as there is no substantial

question of law that arise for consideration in the second

appeal and, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

_______________________ B.KRISHNA MOHAN, J.

Date : 06-01-2021 Gvl

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

SECOND APPEAL No.271 of 2019

Date : 06-01-2021

Gvl