Rama Rameswarai vs C.K. Subramanyam,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3347 AP

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                        MAIN CASE No.S.A.NO.266 of 2022
                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                         Office
                                                      ORDER

No DATE Note

3. 04.07.2022 KSR, J The plaintiff in O.S.No.365 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, is the appellant. She filed the above suit seeking permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on her application, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rapthadu assigned a house site patta vide H.S.Dis.No.27/1414 dated 22.02.2005 for the plot No. 114 in her favour. Thereafter, she constructed a house in the year 2006 and was also assigned house number to the said House. Electricity Department provided the power supply to the said house. Water connection was also provided. As the defendant was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, she filed the above suit.

Respondents/Defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement stating that the said house site was allotted in the name of his father in D.Dis.No.17/84 dated 18.05.1975 and she is not the owner of the property. After an elaborate trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs by way of judgment and decree dated 19.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed Appeal viz., A.S.No. 69/2018 before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Ananthapur.

After hearing both sides, the said appeal was

allowed by setting aside judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The judgment was delivered on 21.02.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the following substantial question of law.

1. whether the 1st Appellant Court correctly appreciated the evidence of PW1? and

2. whether the 1st appellant court erred in misreading the evidence adduced by PW1?

Admit the Second Appeal.

________ KSR, J

I.A.No.1 of 2022 Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the learned counsel and for the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, both parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today, until further orders.

________ KSR, J

BSK