Rayudu Prakash Rao, vs Rayudu Venkateswarlu,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1610 AP

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                           MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.449 of 2021

                                  PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     Date                                   ORDER                                 OFFICE
No.                                                                                   NOTE

      01.04.2022   SRS,J
                                        S.A.No.449 of 2021


                         This second appeal is filed by defendant No.1 against
                   the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2021 passed in
                   A.S.No.99 of 2019 on the file of learned IV Additional District
                   Judge, Kakinada, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed
                   the appeal confirming the judgment and decree, dated
                   15.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.428 of 2014 on the file of
                   learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

                   . Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.428 of 2014

against the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree, dated 15.04.2019. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendant No.1 preferred appeal vide A.S.No.99 of 2019 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same was dismissed confirming the decree of the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal.

The plaintiff filed suit for injunction ascertaining possession over the property. During pendency of the suit, he filed I.A.No.1221 of 2016 seeking recovery of the property stating that the defendants illegally occupied the schedule property. However, the said petition was dismissed on merits.

Apart from that plaintiff deposed in his cross- examination that a fish tank is in existence in the schedule property and he did not take plea in the plaint about the existence of fish tank. However, he pleads that initially it was paddy field and later fish tank was dug by one Satti Babu with the assistance of the defendants. He did not state about said fact in his chief affidavit also.

Heard.

Admit.

In view of the above and as the suit is filed for injunction the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1. Whether the judgment of the Court below in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse and based on surmises and conjectures without proper appreciation of evidence on record insofar as the findings against the appellants are concerned?

2. Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated for non-consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant herein?

3. Whether the judgment of the Courts below is vitiated by failure to consider the entire material on record and misreading the same?

4. Whether the suit for permanent injunction against the appellant herein can be decreed inspite of the contentions and evidences on record disproves the possession of respondent No.1 herein over schedule property, only on the basis that there is no rebuttal evidence?

I.A.No.1 of 2021

Since the Second Appeal is admitted, injunction granted in O.S.No.428 of 2014 by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada which was confirmed in A.S.No.99 of 2019 by learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada is hereby suspended until further orders.

______ SRS,J

ikn