Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Muppavarapu Leelavathi, vs Eethamukkala Ramanaiah Died on 2 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: Second Appeal No. 188 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE
02. 02.04.2024 NJS, J
SA No.188 of 2024
Heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sivaprasad
Reddy Venati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents 2 and 3.
The learned Senior Counsel made submissions to
the effect that as there is interference with the
possession of the property purchased through
registered Sale Deed dated 11.08.2004, the appellant
herein filed a suit in O.S No.489 of 2010 along with
her husband Mr. Muppavarapu Veeraiah Chowdary
before the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Nellore seeking permanent injunction against one Mr.
Cherlopalli Audinarayana & 7 others. He submits that
the learned Trail Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence including the admissions made
by defendant No.5 which was examined as DW1 with
regard to possession of the property by the appellant
herein granted permanent injunction and decreed the
suit vide orders dated 11.10.2018. He submits that in
Cont....2
the appeal filed against the said judgment vide AS
No.168 of 2018, the learned Prl. District Judge,
Nellore without considering the relevant aspects
allowed the same by an order dated 22.12.2023. He
also submits that learned Appellate Court on a
misinterpretation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy
(died) by Lrs & others1 came to an erroneous
conclusion that as there is a serious cloud in respect of
the title of the suit, property suit for injunction
simplicitor is not maintainable. The learned Senior
Counsel submits that the order under appeal is not
sustainable for the various substantial questions of
law set out in the grounds of appeal. He also submits
that injunction in favour of the petitioner was in
operation during the pendency of the suit, which was
not suspended in the appeal and therefore an
injunction as sought for pending disposal of the
Second Appeal may be granted.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand made
submissions to sustain the order of the appellate
Court. He submits that a specific plea was taken in
the written statement with regard to title of the
appellant / plaintiff and even in respect of their
vendors. He further submits that the learned
Cont....3
(2008) 4 SCC 594
Appellate Court is right in applying the ratio in
Ananthula Sudhakar's Case referred to above and
only in the event, the appellant / plaintiff is in lawful
possession of the property then a suit for injunction
simplicitor is sustainable. He submits that as the
appellant / plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the
suit schedule property, the only remedy available is to
file a suit for declaration and seek injunction in the
said suit.
Considered the submissions made on both sides
and perused the material on record. On an
appreciation of the judgment of the trial Court
granting permanent injunction on the basis of oral and
documentary evidences and as same is reversed by
the appellate Court, this Court is of the opinion that
the matter requires consideration, more particularly in
view of the following substantial questions of law:-
i. Whether the lower Appellate Court acted
legally in holding that the suit for bare
injunction is not maintainable only on
the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in Anathula
Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (died) by
LRs and others reported in AIR 2008
Supreme Court Page 2033, that too
without even reference to the facts of
the case?
Cont....4
ii. Whether the lower Appellate Court acted
legally in not taking into consideration
the admissions made in the evidence
adduced on behalf of the defendants with
regard to the possession of the plaintiff
in the suit schedule property?
iii. In the absence of any cloud over title of
the plaintiff in respect of the plaint
schedule property, whether the lower
Appellate Court acted legally in holding
that the suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable?
iv. Whether the lower Appellate Court acted
legally in not taking into consideration
the findings recorded by the Trial Court
with regard to the title of the plaintiff
and the failure of defendants to prove
their right?
In view of the above substantial questions of
law, the Second Appeal deserves admission and
therefore, the same is admitted.
List the matter on 30.04.2024.
_____
NJS, J
Considering the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel that there is an injunction
through out in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, there
shall be interim injunction as prayed for, pending Cont....5
further orders. The appellant / plaintiff shall also not
alienate or create third party interest in respect of the
suit schedule property.
Dispense with petition is ordered for the present.
_____
NJS, J
GVK
