Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Surapaneni Vijayalakshmi vs Narasaraopet Municipality on 1 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE : S.A.No.481 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
1. 01.11.2022
SRS,J
S.A.No.481 of 2022
Plaintiff No.1 filed the present second appeal
against the judgment and decree, dated 18.08.2022
passed in A.S.No.67 of 2013 on the file of learned XIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet
reversing the judgment and decree, dated 02.04.2013
passed in O.S.No.46 of 2009 on the file of learned
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.46 of 2009 seeking
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and
their men from interfering with peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property.
Pending the suit plaintiff No.2 died. The trial
Court decreed the suit with costs by granting
permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff No.1
restraining the defendants and their men from ever
interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of
plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved
by the same, defendants preferred A.S.No.67 of 2013
and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment
and decree of the trial Court, against which the present
second appeal is filed.
Heard.
Admit.
The following substantial questions of law arise
for consideration.
1. Whether any condition in the sale deed is
repugnant to the provisions of Section 11
of the Transfer of Property Act and that
the finding of the first appellate Court that
the sale of property under Ex.A2 by the
Government to defendant No.2 is with the
condition is correct?
2. Whether the finding of the first appellate
Court that the enjoyment of the property
by defendant No.2 on selling the property
is invalid as it is against the provisions of
Sections 8 and 10 of the Transfer of
Property Act?
3. Whether the first appellate Court is right
in stating that the sale deeds Ex.A2 and
A1 are cancelled and have no force at all
that there was no cancellation of
instrument under Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act is not made?
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the judgment passed by the appellate
Court by setting aside the judgment and decree of the
trial Court, respondents are trying to dispossess the
petitioner from the suit schedule property. He also
submits that separate suit was filed for recovery of
possession of the suit schedule property.
Perused the affidavit.
In para No.10 of the affidavit filed in support of
this petition, it is asserted that during pendency of the
appeal, the judgment of trial Court was not suspended
by the appellate Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be ad-interim injunction restraining the
respondents and their officials or personnel from
interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the petitioner over the suit schedule property until
further orders.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted
to take out personal notice on the respondent by
registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof
of service.
______
SRS,J
ikn
