A.P.H.C.CASE LAW - ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

INJUNCTION SUIT - PLAINTIFF NOT ONLY PROVE HIS POSSESSION BUT ALSO PROVE THE ALLEGED INTERFERANCE BY THE DEFENDANTS It is well settled law and principle that when a person came to the court and seek a relief of permanent injunction, he has to establish the possession over the plaint schedule property as on the 3 date of filing of the suit and also interference of opposite party into his peaceful possession and enjoyment, but though D5, who is plaintiff in OS 130/08 filed suit for seeking a relief of permanent injunction against plaintiff herein, who is D3 in OS 130/08 failed to prove his possession over plaint schedule property as well as alleged interference of plaintiff and her children. “37. As per the version of D5 (Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) while he is enjoying the property, plaintiff 2 and her children who are D1 to D3 in OS130/08, along with 5 others, came to the suit schedule property on 23.02.08 at about 6:00 p.m., without any manner of right, title, possession try to occupy the same and at the intervention of one Pothuraju and others, D5 (Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) could resist the illegal acts committed by the plaintiff and her children, but to prove the said interference of plaintiff and her children, D5(Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) neither choose to adduce any corroborative oral evidence nor marked any supportive document. If really plaintiff and her children (D1 to D3 in OS 130/2008) committed the alleged illegal acts against D5 and the same was resisted with the help of one Pothuraju and others, what prevented D5(Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) to get examine said Pothuraju or any others person who allegedly resisted plaintiff and her children (D1 to D3 in OS 130/2008) on his behalf to prove the alleged interference of plaintiff and her children. But no positive evidence is placed by D5(Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) to establish the alleged inference of plaintiff and her children (who are D1 to D3 in OS 130/2008). In absence of any positive evidence, the version of D5(Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) that while he is enjoying the property, plaintiff and her children (who are D1 to D3 in OS 130/2008) came to schedule property and interfered into his possession of property is not tenable. Further more once D5(Plaintiff in OS 130/2008) failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property, the question of interfere does not arise.

when the defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff’s vendors, the suit ought to have been filed for declaration of title and mere seeking of a permanent injunction will not entitle the plaintiff for a decree. In the absence of establishment of possession and enjoyment of the said property, it cannot be decreed.

whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction for eviction of a tenant by landlord as the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the bank aganist the landlord ? - No The appellants herein/the tenants are neither the guarantors nor any person inducted into the possession of the secured asset/suit schedule property by way of a lease after notice under Section 13 (2) was given and default committed. Admittedly they have been inducted into the possession of the plaint schedule property on 01.11.2011 by virtue of an oral lease and they have committed default of payment of rent with effect from 01.12.2012 and the creditor bank took symbolic possession of the secured asset/plaint schedule property of the borrower/landlord on 18.09.2015 under the provisions of SARFAESI Act which was not injucted by the Courts below. The present case which was dealt by the Courts below is totally falls outside the purview of the proceedings of the SARFAESI Act and the Judgments and decrees of the Courts below do not hit or inject the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any other Appellate Tribunal to function under the provisions of SARFAESI Act with reference to the very same plaint schedule property which is a secured asset mortgaged by the borrower/the landlord/the respondent herein. There is no conflict of orders passed by the Courts below with the orders that may be passed under SARFAESI Act and RDBI Act 1993.

Or.26 rule 9 of CPC - Petition for Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule - suit for mandatory injunction & permanent Injunction - for demolition of illegal construction of shops allegedly made by the defendants in the plaint schedule site- Tiral Court dismissed on the main ground that the plaintiff failed to file any document to show about the disputed measurements and she filed the plaint schedule basing on the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 09.10.2006 and she has not filed any document to show the disputed measurements. The Court further observed that the plaintiff could now show prima facie evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was a dispute regarding the remaining extent of 28 feet x 1.50 feet site - Their Lordships of AP High Court held that the suit is at the inceptional stage and the trial has not yet commenced.-this Court is of the considered view that after the trial is completed and if the plaintiff is able to establish that originally she purchased 3 RCC shops in an extent of 28 feet x 12 feet and the constructions made by the defendants fall within any portion of the aforesaid extent purchased by her, she is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan as ABCD marked portion and to make measurements and note down the boundaries etc, in which case the trial Court shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

the very appointment of the petitioners as Village Revenue Assistants is in dispute as the respondents contending that the appointment of the petitioners is contrary to the Rules, thereby the respondents addressed a letter to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada inviting certain clarifications, but successfully Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada avoided to clarify any of the issues while directing the Revenue Department to take action in accordance with the Rules. Till date, no action was taken to find out whether the appointment of the petitioners is in accordance with the rules or in violation of rules. Even according to G.O.Ms.No.13 Revenue (SER.III) Department dated 27.01.2020 certain guidelines were given for promotion of the Village Revenue Assistants as Village Revenue Officers, Grade –II and necessary qualification is prescribed in paragraph No.7 of the said Government Order. = Here, it is not the question of doubtful integrity and the dispute is with regard to appointment of the petitioners in violation of the rules. Therefore, such question of fact has to be examined by the competent authority and this Court cannot undertake such exercise of deciding the appointment of the petitioners is in accordance with the rules or otherwise. At best, this Court can issue a direction to the respondents to enquire into the alleged illegalities in the appointment of the petitioners and if the appointment of the petitioners is in accordance with the law and rules, the case of the petitioners be considered subject to fulfilling other conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.13 Revenue (SER.III) Department dated 27.01.2020, within four (4) weeks from today.

levying GST on the value of broken rice, bran and husk obtained by the petitioners on custom milling of the paddy.= the assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent levying GST on the value of by-products i.e., broken rice, bran and husk treating them as part of the consideration paid to the petitioners for custom milling of the paddy, are set aside.

whether family members of misssing employee can claim family pension etc., ? her husband, who was missing for last seven years, may be deemed not to be alive, the respondent approached the petitioners for grant of terminal benefits, pension/family pension etc.= the scope of grant of retiral benefits to family members of a missing employee as provided in OM No.F.No.1/17/2011-P&PW(E), dated 24/25.06.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, which reads as follows: “4. In the case of a missing employee/pensioner/family pensioner, the family can apply for the grant of family pension, amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of GPF and gratuity (whatever has not already been received) to the Head of office of the organisation where the employee/pensioner had last served, six months after lodging of police report. The family pension and/or retirement gratuity may be sanctioned by the Administrative Ministry/Department after observing the following formalities:- (i) The family must lodge a report with the concerned Police Station and obtain a report from the Police, that the employee/pensioner/family pensioner has not been traced despite efforts made by them. The report may be a First Information Report or any other report such as a Daily Diary/General Diary Entry (ii) An Indemnity Bond should be taken from the nominee/dependants of the employee/pensioner/family pensioner that all payments will be adjusted against the 4 payments due to the employee/pensioner/family pensioner in case she/he appears on the scene and makes any claim. 5. In the case of a missing employee, the family pension, at the ordinary or enhanced rate, as applicable, will accrue from the expiry of leave or the date up to which pay and allowances have been paid or the date of the police report, whichever is later. In the case of a missing pensioner/family ‘pensioner, it will accrue from the date of the police report or from the date immediately succeeding the date till which pension/family pension had been paid, whichever is later. 6. The retirement gratuity will be paid to the family within three months of the date of application. In case of any delay, the interest shall be paid at the applicable rates and responsibility for delay shall be fixed. The difference between the death gratuity and retirement gratuity shall be payable after the death of the employee is conclusively established or on the expiry of the period of seven years from the date of the police report.” In similar circumstances, Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.1577 of 2016 had granted full pension to the eligible family members of the deceased employee. Relying on the aforesaid proposition of law and applying it to the factual matrix of the case, the Tribunal had granted necessary relief to the respondent widow. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal.

as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Government of Andhra Pradesh/APERC notified minimum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the bereaved family in case of nondepartmental fatal electrical accidents vide the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents Regulation, 2017 (Regulation No.2 of 2017). Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to pay the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner for loss of her husband as a result of electrocution. Learned counsel would also submit that the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the common High Court, in similar set of facts and circumstances, directed the electricity authorities to consider the case of the parties for payment of compensation.

whether the legal heir of a contract employee, who sustained grave injury in the accident while in service, is entitled to claim compassionate appointment ? This issue is squarely covered by the order dated 02.01.2018 in the case of T. Suseela vs. The State represented by the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 [W.P(MD)No.10238 of 2020 and MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2010] passed by the Single Judge of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, wherein the Single Judge after considering various judgments of Supreme Court decided the issue against the petitioner therein. However, the request of this petitioner is limited i.e., to consider the representation dated 24.07.2017. Hence, the 4th respondent is requested to dispose of the representation dated 24.07.2017 submitted by the petitioner to the District Collector, Guntur keeping in view the law laid down by the Single Judge of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in T. Suseela’s case (referred supra) and the law declared therein, within a period of four (04) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

permitting the petitioners to collect the rates of admission as mentioned in their respective representations to the respondents for the Telugu movie “RED” which is proposed to be released soon, subject to strictly adhering to the circular instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time and Standard Operating Procedure issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India dated 06.10.2020 for exhibition of films on preventive measures to contain spread of Covid-19 and subject to compliance of direction issued in earlier order passed in W.P.No.9734 of 2019 and batch, following the order of Division Bench in W.P.No.18779 of 2014.

Section 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for grant of interim custody of his vehicle = whether a vehicle seized in connection with crime registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act is liable for confiscation or not only at the time of convicting, acquitting or discharging the accused. But there is no mention that interim custody of a vehicle cannot be ordered. Further, if the vehicle is kept idle it will render useless and there is every likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged.