M. Jayarama Reddy vs E. Ramalinga Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 1569 AP

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN


                    SECOND APPEAL No.176 OF 2019


JUDGMENT:

This second appeal arises against the Judgment and decree in

A.S.No.63 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge,

Chittoor dated 24.12.2018 confirming the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.800 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Chittoor dated 18.03.2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

counsel for the respondents.

3. The appellant herein is the appellant in the first appeal and the

plaintiff in the suit. The respondents herein are the respondents in the

first appeal and the defendants in the suit.

4. The plaintiff initiated an action in O.S.No.800 of 2005 on the file

of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against the

defendants seeking for grant of permanent injunction over the suit

schedule property. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial

Court gave a finding that the plaintiff could not establish the possession

as on the date of filing of the suit and accordingly the suit is dismissed

with costs in-spite of execution of the Ex.A1 registered sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property vide its

Judgment dated 18.03.2015.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred first appeal in

A.S.No.63 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge,

Chittoor and upon consideration of the appeal on merits the lower

appellate Court also gave a similar finding declaring that though the title

of the plaintiff is established prima facie under Ex.A1 as on the date of

institution of the suit and as such the lower appellate Court also

confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court vide its Judgment

and Decree dated 24.12.2018.

6. Assailing the same, the plaintiff filed the Second Appeal under

Section 100 C.P.C., raising certain grounds. Since the plaintiff could not

establish the possession over the suit schedule property, both the Courts

below concurrently held against the plaintiff and the substantial

question of law in the present Second Appeal does not arise and as such

this Court cannot show any indulgence at this stage.

7. Accordingly the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. However it

does not preclude the appellant herein to seek for a comprehensive

relief with respect to the suit schedule property in an appropriate

proceedings as per law.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

March 17, 2021 Yvk