Kakuturu Dayasagar Reddy vs Kakuturu Gnana Prasunamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3139 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
 MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.246 OF 2022
                                   PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.                                                                                                 OFFICE
                                                                                                     NOTE
No.
       DATE                                          ORDER
3.    29.06.2022
                   KSR,J

                                               S.A.NO.246 OF 2022

                     The plaintiff in O.S.No.300 of 2013 on the file of the Court of III

                   Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore is the appellant herein. He filed the

                   said suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint

schedule property.

It is contended by the plaintiff/appellant that originally the suit schedule

property belongs to his grand-father-Penchala Reddy and after his demise

the property was inherited by the father of the plaintiff-late Raghava

Reddy and his brother Sivarami Reddy. The share of Raghava Reddy was

settled down in favour of the plaintiff in or about 1978. The share of

Sivarami Reddy was inherited by his only son-Doraswamy Reddy who in-

turn settled the same in favour of the plaintiff in exchange of lands

between them around in the year 1980. Since then, the plaintiff has been

in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the respondents are trying

to interfere with the possession of the appellant, he filed the suit. The

defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. After an

elaborate trial, the trial court decreed the suit and granted permanent

injunction. On an appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said

judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the

plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the

following substantial question of law,

"Whether the lower appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by misreading the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff?"

ADMIT the Second Appeal.

                                                                          _________________
                                                                          K.SURESH REDDY,J
 Sl.                                                                                         OFFICE
                                                                                             NOTE
No.
      DATE                                      ORDER

                                         I.A.NO.2 OF 2022

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that there was no interim order in favour of the respondents/defendants during the pendency of Appeal. As such, right through the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

In that view of the matter, there shall be an interim injunction, as prayed for, till disposal of the Second Appeal.

Notice.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J TSNR