Swarna Naga Subbaiah, vs Nagallapati Narayanamma,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3200 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
 MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.197 OF 2022
                                   PROCEEDINGS SHEET
Sl.                                                                                                OFFICE
                                                                                                    NOTE
No.
       DATE                                          ORDER
3.    30.06.2022
                   KSR,J

                                              S.A.NO.197 OF 2022

                     The defendants in O.S.No.562 of 2012 on the file of the court of III

                   Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa are the appellants. The plaintiff filed

                   the above suit for grant of permanent injunction. It is contended by the

                   plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property

                   situated in Sy.No.898/1 of Chinna Chowk Village of Kadapa Mandal having

                   purchased the same from the defendants under a valid registered sale

                   deed, dated 22-03-1999 and took possession of the same. Subsequently,

                   the defendants demanded the plaintiff to reregister the suit schedule

                   property in their name for which she refused. Therefore, the defendants,

                   bore grudge against the plaintiff and started troubling her. Therefore, she

                   was constrained to file the above suit.


                     Defendant No.1 filed his written statement, which was adopted by the

                   2nd defendant stating that they have nothing to do with the property in

                   Sy.No.898/1. The defendants are in possession of Ac.0.05 cents of land in

                   Sy.No.898/3 having purchased the same under a registered sale deed,

                   dated 07-06-1983 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

                   Sofar as the land in Sy.No.898/1 is concerned, they are nothing to do with

                   the same.


                    After an elaborate trial, the trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and

                   decree, dated 22-01-2015. Questioning the said judgment, the plaintiff filed

                   A.S.No.24 of 2015 before the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Pending

                   appeal, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1667 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

                   to permit her to correct the Survey Number as 898/3 in the suit schedule

                   in the place of Sy.No.898/1. The said I.A was dismissed by an order dated

                   31-12-2021. Thereafter the Appeal Suit was taken up for hearing and the

                   same was allowed on 31-12-2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present

                   Second Appeal is filed.
 Sl.                                                                                        OFFICE
                                                                                            NOTE
No.
      DATE                                      ORDER

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

             substantial questions of law,


                1.

Whether the Appellate Court below having seen the mistake crept in Survey Number in EX.A-1 as admitted by the plaintiff can grant permanent injunction against the appellants who are in possession of different survey numbers?

2. Whether the Appellate Court below can allow the appeal on the admission/weakness of the defendants when the plaintiff could not prove his case? And

3. Whether when the plaintiff filed I.A. admitting mistake in Ex.A-1 the Appellate Court below having dismissed the same, can allow the appeal which is contradictory?

ADMIT the Second Appeal.

_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J

I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this

application and having heard the learned counsel, both parties are directed

not to alienate or create any third party interest over the suit schedule

property till disposal of the Second Appeal.

Notice.

                                                                  _________________
                                                                   K.SURESH REDDY,J



             TSNR
 Sl.                  OFFICE
                      NOTE
No.
      DATE   ORDER