No evidence of possession - no injunction = the RDO dated 03.08.1997, marked as Ex.B10, the said order of MRO was set aside and the said appellate order has become final.= In order to prove possession, the plaintiff has strongly relied upon Ex.A6, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 16.07.1992 whereunder he claimed that the name of the plaintiff is shown to the extent of Ac.0.7 ½ cents in Sy.No.398/3. However, against the said order, the defendants had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and under order of the RDO dated 03.08.1997, marked as Ex.B10, the said order of MRO was set aside and the said appellate order has become final. Other than the said document, the documents filed by the plaintiff are tax receipts, which hardly have any evidentiary value to establish possession and entitled for injunction.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

 

SECOND APPEAL No.149 of 2013

 

 

BETWEEN


Poola Sakunthalamma.
... APPELLANT

AND

Badiri Narayana and nine others.
...RESPONDENTS

 

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. VEERA REDDY

 

Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED--

 

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:
         

This appeal is by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below wherein the plaintiff’s suit, being O.S.No.433 of 1994, for injunction was dismissed under judgment dated 31.08.2004.

2.       While the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property and sought perpetual injunction against the defendants,
the defendants disputed the plaintiff’s title as well as possession.
In order to prove possession, the plaintiff has strongly relied upon Ex.A6, the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 16.07.1992 whereunder he claimed that the name of the plaintiff is shown to the extent of Ac.0.7 ½ cents in Sy.No.398/3. However, against the said order, the defendants had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and under order of the RDO dated 03.08.1997, marked as Ex.B10, the said order of MRO was set aside and the said appellate order has become final. Other than the said document,
the documents filed by the plaintiff are tax receipts, which hardly have any evidentiary value to establish possession and entitled for injunction.

3.       The trial Court, on consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that irrespective of the weaknesses pointed out by the plaintiff in the case of defendants, the plaintiff has to succeed by establishing his possession for being entitled to the injunction as prayed for and since the plaintiff has failed to establish the same,
the suit was dismissed. 
4.       In this appeal, being A.S.No.14 of 2004, before the lower appellate Court also, the appellant/plaintiff has placed strong reliance only upon the title documents, Exs.A1 and A2. However, admittedly, resurvey has taken place and new survey numbers are assigned, which the plaintiff herself is unable to state as to whether the suit land falls under the resurvey. Consequently, the lower appellate Court also declined to grant any relief.

5.       In view of the said concurrent findings, recorded by both the Courts below, I am unable to see any question of law much less substantial question of law to entertain the appeal.

The second appeal is accordingly dismissed as the stage of admissionAs a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.



_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
March 22, 2013
DSK










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.