not established her prima facietitle as well as the possession of the suit schedule property.= The appellant filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the respondent. It is her pleaded case that she has purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor under registered sale deed, dated 09-03-2006, marked as Ex.A-1. It is also her pleaded case that her vendor has been in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of its sale and that, later, she continued to be in possession thereof. In support of her plea, she has filed Exs.A-2 to A-12-Tax receipts.= The respondent resisted the appellant’s suit by filing a written statement. While denying the title of the appellant’s vendor, the respondent has set up the title in herself by placing reliance on the certified copies of sale deeds marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. The respondent also filed tax receipts numbering seven for the years 2004 to 2007, marked as Ex.B-7 and a bunch of electricity bills numbering 26 for the years 2004 to 2007, marked as Ex.B-8. She also filed Possession Certificate marked as Ex.B-10.- Both the Courts below on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that the appellant has not established her prima facietitle as well as the possession of the suit schedule property.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

                 SECOND APPEAL No.59 of 2013

Date:06.02.2013

Between:

M. Lakshmi Bai                                                          ... Appellant

And

Nayakula Saraswathamma                                         ... Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant        : Sri C. Mastan Naidu
                          
Counsel for the Respondent    : ----
                                                

The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT
:
This Second Appeal arises out of judgment, dated 13-08-2012, in A.S.No.65 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Court, Anantapur, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against judgment, dated 29-08-2011, in O.S.No.130 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.
The appellant filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the respondent.  It is her pleaded case that she has purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor under registered sale deed, dated 09-03-2006, marked as Ex.A-1.  It is also her pleaded case that her vendor has been in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of its sale and that, later, she continued to be in possession thereof.  In support of her plea, she has filed Exs.A-2 to    A-12-Tax receipts. She has also examined herself as PW-1 and one Kuruba Vannurappa as PW-2.
The respondent resisted the appellant’s suit by filing a written statement.  While denying the title of the appellant’s vendor, the respondent has set up the title in herself by placing reliance on the certified copies of sale deeds marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2.  The respondent also filed tax receipts numbering seven for the years 2004 to 2007, marked as Ex.B-7 and a bunch of electricity bills numbering 26 for the years 2004 to 2007, marked as Ex.B-8.  She also filed Possession Certificate marked as Ex.B-10.
Both the Courts below on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that the appellant has not established her prima facietitle as well as the possession of the suit schedule property.
Having carefully considered the evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the Courts below in dismissing the said suit and the appeal, I am of the opinion that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law for entertaining the Second Appeal.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Second Appeal, S.A.M.P.No.132 of 2013 filed by the appellant for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

___________________________
                                       C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
06-02-2013
SKA/DR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.