Pila Lathamma vs Peela Ramunaidu
2022 Latest Caselaw 947 AP

                      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH


MAIN CASE NO:      S.A.No.85 of 2022
                                   PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No.      Date                             ORDER                            OFFICE NOTE



 1.      22.02.2022 BSB, J
                                       S.A.No.85 of 2022
                            Heard learned counsel for the
                    appellant. In view of the substantial
                    questions        of      law     raised       by   the
                    appellant in the appeal, ADMIT.
                            Learned            counsel        for      the
                    appellant is permitted to take out
                    personal service of notice to the
                    respondents by RPAD and file proof

thereof.

Post the matter on 24.03.2022.

I.A.No1 of 2022 This application is filed to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the decree and judgment in A.S.No.57 of 2017 dated 07.10.2021 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam including to the 3rd party interest by alienation or otherwise in respect of Plot No.160 in Survey No.45 of Purushotha Puram Village, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of the Second Appeal.

The appellant before this Court is the plaintiff; she filed the suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction to remove the illegal plantation of banana, scheduled properties etc, and for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. The suit was decreed on 31.01.2017. The aggrieved defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.57 of 2017 which is allowed on 07.10.2021, observing that there is dispute of identity of the property in localizing the same on ground and that Simhachalam Devathanam, which is necessary party, has not been impleaded and thus the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Assailing the said decree and judgment, the appellant filed this Second Appeal contending that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the mis- joinder or non-joinder of parties and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.

It is further contended that the appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence placed by the plaintiff who is conferring title possession of the plaintiff recognized by the appropriate authorities like VUDA.

Having considered the contentions, the issues to be resolved in the Second Appeal and to balance the interests of both the parties, there is prima facie ground to grant interim order restraining the respondents not to change the nature of the plaint schedule property or create 3rd party interest by alienation or otherwise pending the appeal for a certain time.

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal service of notice to the respondents by RPAD and file proof thereof.

Post the matter on 22.03.2022.

        In       the       meanwhile,            the
respondents         are     directed       not    to
change        the   nature      of   the     plaint

schedule property or create therein 3rd party interest, by alienation or otherwise.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J PGT