Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Potnuru Simhachalam(Died) And Others vs Chintapalli Rama Rao Mukhalingam And ... on 11 September, 2024
APHC010173462024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 249/2024
Between:
Potnuru Simhachalam(died) and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Chintapalli Rama Rao Mukhalingam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. RAJA REDDY KONETI-01263/AP/149/1977
2. RAJA REDDY KONETI
The Court made the following:
S.A.No.249 of 2024
Plaintiffs 1 to 6 filed the present second appeal against the judgment and
decree, dated 11.01.2024 passed in A.S.No.56 of 2017 on the file of learned
Judge, Family Court -cum- III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, reversing
the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S.No.20 of 2008 on the
file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.20 of 2008 seeking a permanent injunction,
restraining the defendants, their men, agents, and servants from ever entering
into or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the
plaint schedule property.
The trial Court decreed the suit with costs granting a permanent
injunction, restraining the defendants and their men, agents, and servants
from ever entering into or interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment in respect of the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved by the same,
defendants 4 and 5 preferred A.S.No.56 of 2017, 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 the appellate Court failed to consider Exs.A1 to A6 in
proper perspective?
2. Whether the appellate Court failed to consider Ex.A5, reply notice,
issued by the defendants/respondents admitting the possession of
the plaintiffs/appellants?
____________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
This petition is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for grant of
injunction restraining the respondents, their men, and persons claiming
through them from interfering with the possession of the petitioners/appellants
over the suit schedule property.
Heard.
In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that the
petitioners/plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for
a long time. The suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed by the trial
Court. In the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants injunction was not
suspended and petitioners/plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit
schedule property. Taking advantage of the judgment in appeal, the
respondents are making hectic efforts to interfere with the suit schedule
property.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the
petitioners/plaintiffs have an injunction although and continued in possession
of the suit schedule property, there shall be an injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants and their men, etc., from interfering with peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the suit schedule
property until further orders.
____________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 11.09.2024
IKN
