rehabilitation scheme - the allotment proceedings did not contain any prohibition on alienation of the property.trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, - held that there is no wrong to interfere - Dismissed the appeal

SA 185 / 2016


Between: Mamidi Eswaramma … Appellant
And Yellapu Maheswararao … Respondent
This second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the Courts below.
The admitted facts of the case are that the mother of the appellant was allotted the suit schedule property under a rehabilitation scheme. She has sold the same for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent.
As the appellant was interfering with the possession and occupation of the respondent, the latter has filed O.S. No.494 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, for permanent injunction. 
The trial Court framed the following issues.
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the defendant has got any right in the schedule property?
3. To what relief?”
After full-fledged trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, vide its judgment dt.31.3.2010 in A.S. No.4 of 2009. The main plea raised in the suit is that as the property was allotted to her mother under a rehabilitation scheme, she had no right to alienate the same. However, both the courts below have found that the allotment proceedings did not contain any prohibition on alienation of the property. This finding falls under the realm of disputed question of fact. As both the Courts below have rendered concurrent findings on this fact in favour of the respondent, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, S.A.M.P. Nos.612 of 2013, 491 and 492 of 2016 shall stand dismissed as infructuous. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10-06-2016 bnr


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

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.