Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pantina Suryanarayana vs Tantravahi China V S Ramayya on 20 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.147 of 2020
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
11. 20.07.2021 MVR,J Tr. to I-O
folder before
S.A.No.147 of 2020 corrections if
any.
Pl.verify.
Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent.
Upon consideration of the decrees and judgments of
the trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court, since the
following substantial questions of law arise for
determination in the second appeal, ADMIT.
1. Whether the appellate Court is right in reversing
the well considered judgment and decree of the
trial Court contrary to the established principles of
law, for in a suit for injunction it is for the plaintiff
to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule
property as on the date of filing of the suit and
there will be no discharge or shift of burden to the
same as plaintiff has to stand or fall on the strength
of his case?
2. Is the appellate Court right in holding that the
defendant failed to prove his case, when in a suit
for injunction it is vice-versa and decreed the suit
contrary to the settled principles of law?
Issue notice to the 1st respondent to submit arguments
in respect of above substantial questions of law(Arulmighu
Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v. Tamilarasi(dead) by
Lrs. (AIR 2019 SC 3027) followed).
List the matter during the second week of September,
2021.
______
MVR,J
I.A.No.4 of 2020
Heard.
The second appeal is admitted this day,
considering the substantial questions of law raised by
the petitioner/appellant.
Moreover, it is a case of reversal of the judgment
of the trial Court, where the suit for permanent
injunction filed by the 1st respondent against the
appellant was dismissed and in appeal, the relief of
injunction was granted in favour of the 1st respondent
and against the appellant.
In view of the same, there are certain questions for
consideration in the second appeal, in such an event, it
is always desirable to see that the situation of the
property is maintained, as was existing on the date of
institution of the suit, regarding which certain
observations were recorded by the trial Court, of
course, which were disturbed in the appeal.
In these circumstances, it is desirable that there
shall be stay of operation of the decree of the
appellate Court till disposal of the second appeal.
In the course of hearing, Sri Ravi Cheemalapati,
learned counsel for the 1st respondent, contended that the
1st respondent has already raised structures in the property
in dispute and that he has been living there. In such a
situation, according to the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent, staying operation of the decree and judgment
of the appellate Court, when the second appeal was
instituted in the year 2019, is not required.
But in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no
necessity to grant such interim relief. Considering the fact
that the second appeal requires due consideration on
substantial questions of law and if necessary, the Court can
travel into the area of fact in the interest of justice.
Therefore, there shall be interim stay of operation of
the decree in A.S.No.124 of 2010 dated 22.02.2019 on the
file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge,
Vizianagram, until further orders.
Notice.
______
MVR,J
Pab
