Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Karunakar Reddy, vs E.Munikrishnaiah, on 5 May, 2022
Bench: B S Bhanumathi
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.203 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
05.05.2022 BSB, J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The suit is filed for permanent injunction
filed in respect of „B‟ schedule property shown
as 50 square feet having length of 25 feet from
east to west and width of 2 feet from north to
south is dismissed and the appeal filed by the
plaintiff was also dismissed.
The aggrieved plaintiff preferred this
appeal contending that both courts below failed
to rely on the admission of DW.1 that the
measurement of the property is not 39 feet, but
45 feet. In this regard, he relies on the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs
Ibrahim Uddin and another1, wherein it was
held that "admission is the best piece of
substantive evidence that an opposite party can
rely upon, though not conclusive, is decisive of
the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or
proved erroneous. Admission may in certain
circumstances, operate as an estoppel".
Thus, the following substantial questions
of law are raised.
a. When the findings of the Courts below
are not supported by evidence or based on
misconception or erroneous and perverse or
based only surmises, the judgments of
1
2013 AIR (SCW) 2752
lower Courts are liable to be vitiated.
b. Whether the courts below are justified in
dismissing the Suit /Appeal, in view of the
admission of DW1, defendant, in his cross
examination stated that North to south the
measurement of Ayyanna and Siddamma
property is 45 feet, but not 39 feet, when
the admission is the best piece of
substantive evidence that an opposite party
can rely upon.
c. Whether the plaintiff/ Appellant is
entitled for declaration of his right and
permanent injunction over the Plaint "B"
Schedule Property as per Ex.A1.
d. Whether the Judgment of the lower
appellate court is erroneous, perverse,
patently illegal and suffers from procedural
illegality.
e. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is
justified in dismissing the appeal, on
erroneous findings/observations.
f. Whether the lower appellate court is
justified in dismissing the appeal by over
looking the principle that where there is
difference in the extent and the boundary
covered by the document, which is clear
and more specific.
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit the
appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 30.06.2022.
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
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to grant interim
injunction restraining the respondent from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment
of the plaint „B‟ schedule property in
O.S.No.335 of 2012 on the file of the court of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi.
The learned counsel for the
petitioner/appellant stated that during
pendency of the appeal, the interim order of
status quo as granted by the High Court in CMA
No.1295 of 2017 dated 26.12.2017 was in force
and therefore, the stay of order may be
granted.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 30.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the
petitioner/appellant is permitted to take out
personal service of notice to the respondent
through RPAD and file proof thereof.
Till then, status quo shall be maintained
by both parties in respect of „B‟ schedule
property.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
