No possession - No injunction - 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 where under 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 admission. As 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