Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Rama Krishna Reddy vs Kanyadhara Ravi Kumar on 24 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.143 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
24.03.2022 BSB, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The appellant/defendants filed suit for
permanent injunction against defendants 1 and
2 and the suit was decreed. Having aggrieved
by the same, appeal is preferred by the
defendants and the appeal was dismissed.
Having aggrieved by the impugned order in the
appeal, the defendants preferred the second
appeal. It is mainly contended that both Courts
erred in granting the relief though there is a
categorical observation of the trial Court that
the main document of title in favour of plaintiff
was not filed in evidence, basing on oral
evidence the relief was granted. In this regard
and other aspects urged in the grounds of
appeal, the following substantial questions of
law have been raised by the appellants.
1) Whether the Trail Court can grant
injunction in favour of the Respondent
herein who did not establish the
possession over the suit schedule property
by way of documentary evidence except
basing on the General Power of Attorney?
2) Whether the General Power Attorney
holder can pass on title to the other
without the original owners of the land in
dispute being parties to the sale deed?
3) Whether the Sale deed executed in
favour of the Respondent is having any
validity in the eye of law?
Cont..2
:: 2 ::
4) Whether the suit schedule property in
dispute can be sold by the General Power
of Attorney holder in favour of the
Respondent in the form of plots without
there being any lay out as approved by
the Town and Country Planning?
5) Can the Encumbrance Certificate will
establish the possession and title of the
suit schedule property without producing
the original sale deed in favour of the
person who is seeking injunction?
6) Whether the Trail Court can grant
injunction despite holding that the
Plaintiff failed in producing the sale deed
executed by the PW2 in respect of Plot
Nos. 51 and 52 in which the Respondent is
seeking injunction against the appellants
herein who have produced the sale deeds
executed in their favour?
7) Can the suit be decreed on mere
assertion that the plaintiff is in possession
without there being any documentary
proof for substantiating the contentions?
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit the
appeal.
ADMIT.
Post on 18.04.2022.
Notice to respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondent through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
Cont...3
:: 3 ::
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to suspend the
operation of the judgment and decree dated
02.02.2009 in O.S.No.529 of 2007 on the file of
III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending
disposal of the second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondent through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
Post on 18.04.2022.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
I.A.No.2 of 2022
This petition is filed to permit and declare
the petitioner No.1 herein and bring the
petitioner nos.3 and 4 as legal representatives
of deceased petitioner No.2 herein.
In proof of death of the 2nd appellant/2nd
defendant, copy of the certificate of death is
filed. Since the 3rd and 4th appellants being the
children of the deceased 2nd defendant, the
petition is allowed.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
