Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Duvvada Shankararao, vs Sri Pukkalla Appanna, on 24 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.153 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
24.03.2022 BSB, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The suit was filed for permanent injunction.
The suit was dismissed, among other grounds,
that the survey number and boundaries of the
property covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not
tallying with the plaint schedule property and
further that the contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2
under which the said property said to have been
assigned, are not proved though they were
marked, subject to objection. In appeal, the
suit was decreed by allowing the appeal basing
on the admission in the written statement about
the possession of the plaintiffs as the main
consideration in a suit for injunction is
possession. Having aggrieved by the judgment
in the appeal, the defendants preferred the
second appeal alleging that the admission in the
written statement is improperly applied to
decree the suit and the documentary evidence is
also wrongly appreciated and raised the
following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the appellate court is
justified in reversing the well
considered judgment of the trial court
in dismissing the suit for permanent
injunction having arrived at a
conclusion that on careful analysis of
the evidence on record, the plaintiff
who propounded the theory of title
under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and
consequential possession, utterly failed
to establish his title and possession
over the plaint schedule property.
2. Whether the appellate court is
justified in giving a finding that, the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 was in
possession of the plaint schedule
property relying on the pleadings in the
written statement of defendant No.2 in
suit when the documents Exs.A.1 to
A.15 relied by the plaintiff speaks that
the plaint scheduled land situated in
Sy.No.21/1 is a different from the land
shown in the Ex.A.1 which was given on
lease to the plaintiff.
3. Whether the appellate court is
justified in giving a finding that, the
plaintiff is in possession of the land
simply relying on the pleading of
defendant No.2 in his written
statement which is not a sworn
statement as evidence without taking
into consideration Ex.A.2 patta alleged
to be issued by the defendant No.2
which is not legally valid as the said
document does not contain the seal of
the authority who issued which is of
weak evidence to accept the
possession of the plaintiff.
4. Whether the appellate court is
justified in giving a finding that the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule assigned land situated in
Sy.No.2/1 of Gollalapadu village, when
the documentary evidences of Exs.A.1
to A.15 relied on by the plaintiff speaks
against the plaintiff when the land in
Ex.A.1 pertaining to Sy.No.21 showing
entirely different boundaries compared
to the land shown in suit scheduled
property, when the Ex.A.2 does not
contain the seal of issuing authority,
when the Exs.A.4 and A.5 speaks the
land shown in the 0065hibits is private
land not an assigned land as alleged by
the plaintiff and when the Exs.A.7 to
Ex.A.13 which of cist receipts does not
show the survey number of the lands
shown in exhibits.
5. Whether the appellate court below
justified in allowing the appeal
granting relief of permanent injunction
by admitting statement of defendant
No.2 in written statement without any
proof of evidence or material to prove
the same
6. Whether the appellate court is
justified in granting relief of
permanent injunction to the plaintiff
when the plaintiff utterly failed to
establish his title possession over the
plaint schedule property in view of
various discrepancies and inconsistency
in evidence.
7. Whether the appellate court is
justified in giving a finding relying on
the principle that 'the concept of
boundaries prevail over the survey
number and extent from any confusion
does not arise as boundaries are clear'
when the boundaries of the land shown
in the plaint scheduled property is
different from the land shown in the
Ex.A.1.
In such view of the matter, it is a fit case
to admit the appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 20.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellants is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
