Mogal Farhathullah vs Sk. Karimunnisa
2024 Latest Caselaw 8384 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mogal Farhathullah vs Sk. Karimunnisa on 12 September, 2024

 APHC010031332001
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                        [3369]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       SECOND APPEAL NO: 1087/2001

Between:

Mogal Farhathullah
       arhathullah Baig & three others                        ...APPELLANTS
                                                              ...APPELLANT

                                     AND

Sk. Karimunnisa                                               ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant Appellants:

1. D RAGHAVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. N SHOBA

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellants//Appellants/ Plaintiffs against the Decree and Judgment dated 17.09.2001,, in A. A.S.No.41 of 1996 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the decree and Judgment d dated 24.06.1996, 24.06.1996 in O.S.No.40 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Cuddapah (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. In the trial Court, the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff , who filed the suit in O.S.No.40 O.S.No. of 1993 for declaration of plaintiffs' right and title over EFGA site; for mandatory injunction to remove the thatched kottam in EFGA portion and in the event of her failure to remove the same, the plaintiffs may be permitted to remove the same in EFGA portion and recover costs from the defendant; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men and agents from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the remaining vacant site DGEFMN shown in the plaint plan; and for the costs of the suit.

3. As it is brought to the notice of this court that the learned counsel for the appellants is no more, this court sent notice to the appellants 1 to 4. But the notices are unserved as no such addressee was present in the address. This court observed that notices are served to the address shown in the appeal as per the proceedings of this court dt. 03.09.2024. It seems that the appellants have not evinced any interest to prosecute the appeal.

4. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

5. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this appeal, shall also stand closed.

_______________________ T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J MVA 12.09.2024