Nimmakuri Abidnago Died vs Nimmakuri Saratbabu,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5094 AP

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                           MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.293 of 2022
                                   PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     Date                                     ORDER                                     OFFICE
No.                                                                                         NOTE

      10.08.2022   SRS,J
                                           S.A.No.293 of 2022

                           The   present    second   appeal   is   filed   against   the
                   judgment and decree, dated 29.03.2022 passed in A.S.No.11
                   of 2019 by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -
                   cum- Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, confirming the
                   judgment      and   decree,    dated   18.08.2015       passed     in
                   O.S.No.260 of 2005 on the file of learned Principal Junior
                   Civil Judge, Gannavaram.

                           Initially the deceased appellant No.1/plaintiff filed
                   O.S.No.260 of 2005 against the respondents/defendants

for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc. from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

The case of the appellant No.1/plaintiff is that he entered into agreement of sale with one Bhagyamma in respect of the plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties under Ex.A1, dated 12.05.1988 and Ex.A2, dated 19.11.1992 respectively and by virtue of said agreements of sale, appellant No.1/plaintiff came into possession of the plaint schedule properties. The said agreements of sale were ratified and appellant No.1/plaintiff is in possession of the property since then. As the respondents/defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, he filed aforementioned suit.

The trial Court by judgment and decree, dated 18.08.2015 dismissed the suit, against which plaintiff preferred A.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram and pending the appeal the sole appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 4.

The lower appellate Court though observed at para No.26 of the judgment that appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A14 and A15, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed.

Heard.

Admit.

The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1. Whether the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in ignoring to consider that in a suit for injunction, plaintiff, who proves possession on the day of filing of suit, is entitled to injunction?

2. Whether judgments of the Courts below are vitiated in not considering the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 with regard to possession?

3. Whether the Courts below failed to consider the ratio laid down in Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. and another (2004 (1) SCC 769)?

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

Post on 17.08.2022.

______ SRS,J ikn