Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chinta Viswananda Prakash, vs The Gram Panchayat, on 22 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE : S.A.No.351 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
22.08.2022 SRS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed under Section 151 of CPC to
condone the delay of 930 days in representing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission
to withdraw this petition.
Permission is accorded.
This petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.3 of 2022
This petition is filed under Section 151 of CPC to
condone the delay of 930 days in representing the appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in para Nos.2 and 3 of
the accompanying affidavit, this petition is ordered and the
delay of 930 days stands condoned.
______
SRS,J
S.A.No.351 of 2022
The present second appeal is filed against the
judgment and decree, dated 05.09.2019 passed in A.S.No.2 of
2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole, allowing the
appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree, dated
05.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.110 of 2012 on the file of
learned Junior Civil judge, Razole.
The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.110 of 2012 with
a prayer to declare possessory title over the plaint schedule
property and for consequential permanent injunction
restraining the defendant and its authorities from in any
way interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment over it except following due procedure.
The trial Court by judgment and decree dated
05.10.2017 partly decreed the suit granting permanent
injunction in favour of appellant/plaintiff restraining the
respondent/defendant from in any way interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint
schedule property unless and until he is evicted under due
process of law after ascertaining the title over it and
dismissed rest of the claim.
Aggrieved by said relief granted in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff, respondent/defendant preferred
A.S.No.2 of 2019 and in respect of the rejecting claim, the
appellant /plaintiff preferred A.S.No.20 of 2018 The first
appellate Court allowed A.S.No.2 of 2019 filed by the
respondent/defendant and dismissed A.S.No.20 of 2018
filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Against the judgment
passed in A.S.No.2 of 2019, the present appeal is filed.
Heard.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration.
1. Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is
vitiated in ignoring to consider the admission of the
Secretary of Gram Panchayat qua the possession of
the appellant/plaintiff over the plaint schedule
property?
2. Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is
vitiated in ignoring to consider Advocate
Commissioner's report which establishes possession
of the appellant/plaintiff over the plaint schedule
property?
3. Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is
vitiated in ignoring to consider that the plaint
schedule property is Gramakantam land?
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2022
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
injunction granted in O.S.No.110 of 2012 was not
suspended, pending the appeal.
In view of the above and as the averments in the
affidavit prima facie show the possession of the
petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property, there
shall be order of injunction restraining the
respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession
and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the plaint
schedule property until further orders.
______
SRS,J
ikn
