SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(AP) 114

P.L.N.SHARMA
Kanakappagari Chinnabha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


P. L. NARASIMHA SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) SUIT itself was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE suit was based on the claim that the plaintiff purchased the property for a valuable consideration and the same was delivered to him and eversince the said date, be has been in possession and enjoyment there of in his own right and that the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment. The same was resisted by the defendants stating that it is Government Poramboke and that the same was assigned them by the Government and they have been in possession each of the extent of ac. 0-03 cents for over 40 years and that the plaintiff was never in possession.

( 3 ) THE Trial Court dismissed the suit. It held that P. W. 1 may be in possession of the suit site by the date of the suit, but he obtained possession not through legal means but by trespass. The learned Judge also mentioned that P. W. 2 might have accupied the suit site prior to the date of suit, but being a trespasser, he is not entittled to inj



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top