B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in the original suit is the appellant herein. The respondent herein filed the suit praying for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from interfering with her possession of the western wall of the schedule mentioned terraced house. The trial Court after elaborate consideration of the matter dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/ plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned lower appellate judge reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

( 2 ) SRI P. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant in this second appeal submits that the learned lower appellate judge failed to take into consideration the oral evidence let in by the parties and erroneously came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree of perpetual injunction. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate judge failed to take into consideration the Commissioner s report, Ex. C-1.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondent/ plaintiff that she purchased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document