Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nainaru Muni Raja vs Sanathi Muni Rajya Lakshmamma on 6 May, 2022
Bench: B S Bhanumathi
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.219 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
06.05.2022 BSB, J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
The suit is filed for permanent injunction and
the same were dismissed and whereas the same is
reversed in appeal.
Having aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal is filed on the following substantial questions
of law.
1.Whether the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate court in reversing the well considered
Judgment and decree of trial court and in decreeing
the suit for permanent injunction is legally
sustainable and is supported by evidence on record?
2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court while
reversing the judgment of trial Court failed to
evaluate the admission of the respondent at Page 3,
Para 1 of the Ex.B2 written statement, the said
Munichandra, who is the 1st defendant in the said
suit that suit schedule lands are enjoying by the
plaintiff (i.e. 2nd defendant herein), the defendants
(i.e. plaintiff in this suit and her sons) are not liable to
pay interest on the principle amount of Rs.6 lakhs?
3. Whether the lower appellate court is not in error
in not considering the admission by the 1st defendant
in O.S.No.225/2010, who is none other than the son
of the plaintiff herein, amounts to judicial admission
and admitted facts need not be proved as per
Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act?
4. Whether the lower appellate court is not error in
not following the settled legal proposition that the
entries in the revenue records are not conclusive
proof of title and possession over the property?
5. Whether the lower appellate court is not in error
in holding that the respondent has established her
lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule properties as on date of filing of the suit
and as such the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for
permanent injunction?
6. Whether the Judgment of Lower Appellate is
vitiated for the reason that it is pervious and
erroneous?
7. Whether the appellate Court is not in error in
considering that the plaintiffs not satisfied the main
ingredients for granting of injunction i.e., 1) existing
of prima-facie case as pleaded, 2)the balance of
convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiffs, 3)
irreparable loss and injury being caused to the
plaintiffs and ought to have dismissed the appeal?
8. Whether reasoning of the lower appellate Court in
reversing the well consideration judgment of trial
Court is legally sustainable?
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit the
appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 05.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellants 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 suspend the
judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Srikalahasti passed in A.S.No.19 of 2014
dated 07.03.2022, pending disposal of the
appeal.
Notice to respondent.
Post on 05.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the
petitioners/appellants is permitted to take out
personal service of notice to the respondent
through RPAD and file proof thereof.
Till then, the respondents shall maintain
status quo as on today.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
