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