Shaik Shukur vs Shaik Subhani Vemuluripati ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4973 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                       MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.324 of 2022
                                PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.   Date                                 ORDER                                OFFICE
No.                                                                              NOTE


              SRS,J
                                    S.A.No.324 of 2022

                       Defendant No.3 filed the present second appeal against
              the judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2021 passed in
              A.S.No.67 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional District
              Judge, Guntur reversing the judgment and decree, dated
              23.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.509 of 2010 on the file of
              learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

                       The respondent no.1 herein being the plaintiff filed

O.S.No.509 of 2010 against the appellant herein and other respondents seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the heaps of gravel and cotton stems etc., carted by them in from of the plaintiff's house property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff in using panchayat bazaar A, B, C and D as access to his house.

The trial Court, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit with costs. Against the said judgment, respondent No.1/plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 67 of 2015. The lower appellate Court partly decreed the suit by granting mandatory injunction and dismissed the suit insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed.

Heard.

Admit.

The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1. Whether the judgment of lower appellate Court is vitiated in not considering that suit for mandatory injunction alone is not maintainable?

2. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated in not properly considering the evidence of DW1, Panchayat Secretary?

3. Whether the judgment of lower appellate Court is vitiated in coming to the conclusion that the alleged pathway is vested in Gram Panchayat under Section 53 of the Panchayat Raj Act, in the absence of any claim by the Gram Panchayat?

______ SRS,J I.A.No.1 of 2022

Issue notice to respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is permitted to take out personal notice on respondents through RPAD and file proof of service within four weeks.

Post on 02.09.2022.

______ SRS,J ikn