Mallidi Satyanarayana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2691 AP

                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.329 of 2021
                                       PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.      Date                                        ORDER                                              OFFICE
No.                                                                                                      NOTE
1     28.07.2021   MVR,J                                                                                Tr. to I-O
                                                                                                          folder
                                                                                                         before
                                            S.A.No.329 of 2021                                         corrections
                                                                                                         if any.
                                                                                                        Pl.verify.
                           Heard Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the
                   appellants.
                           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 judgment of the lower Court is not
                                 vitiated    in      as     much        as    it    misread      and
                                 misconstrued         the        oral        and     documentary
                                 evidence on record and the cause of action of
                                 encroachment over the suit schedule property
                                 by the 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the Courts below erred in not considering the facts of the case properly, that parties only claimed encroachment into each other lands and for boundary disputes seeking mere injunction would be sufficient instead of seeking declaration of title itself?

3. Whether the Courts below were right in holding that declaration is not sought in suit, when title to the respective property is not in question?

4. Whether the Courts below failed to understand the recording of both the Advocate Commissioners report Exs.C1 to C4 and their evidence point out existence of old pillars of 25 years old and bund and trees on it towards the western side of the suit schedule property?

Issue notice to the respondents 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 last week of October, 2021 along with I.A.

______ MVR,J Pab