Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Saanagani Phakeeramma Rajitha vs Verepalli Hari Prasad Reddy Hari ... on 28 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE : S.A.No.478 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
28.10.2022
SRS,J
S.A.No.478 of 2021
Plaintiffs being the appellants filed the present
second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated
08.08.2022 in A.S.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the III
Additional District Judge, Rajampet, reversing the
judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2019 passed in
O.S.No.34 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Nandalur.
Suit is filed by the plaintiffs for grant of permanent
injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agents
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs' over the plaint schedule
property and for the costs of the suit.
The trial Court decreed the suit with costs.
Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred A.S.No.15 of
2019 and the same was allowed with costs. Therefore, the
present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.
Heard.
ADMIT.
The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration.
1) Whether the findings of the lower appellate Court
that the plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of
permanent injunction over the plaint A, B, C & D
schedule property as they failed to file any sort of
document under which their father acquired the
same despite categorical admission of the
defendant and the overwhelming documentary
proof of possession, enjoyment of the plaintiffs
over the same or not?
2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in
upholding the D-Form patta said to have been
granted in favour of the father of the defendant,
even though he miserably failed to prove the
issuance of the same that too without theirbeing
evidence, whatsoever or not?
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Heard.
This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and
2 Section 151 of C.P.C. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.34 of
2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Nandalur
against the respondent for perpetual injunction. Pending
the suit he also filed I.A.No.101 of 2016 in O.S.No.34 of
2016 for grant of ad interim injunction. Ad interim
injunction was granted and the same was continued
pending the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that against the decree and judgment, respondents
preferred appeal and the order of injunction was not
suspended pending the appeal.
Taking into consideration the above submissions,
since interim injunction is granted in favour of the
appellants and the same is continued pending the appeal,
this Court is inclined to grant injunction pending disposal
of the second appeal.
Issue Notice to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to
take out personal notice to the respondent by RPAD and
file postal slip within two (2) weeks in the Registry.
List on 25.11.2022.
_________
SRS,J
KA
