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

2010 Supreme(AP) 675

2010 (6) ALD 495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Thimmalapenta Seetharamaih. ..appellant.
Vs.
Ulchi Venkateswarlu and others. ..Respondents.
Second Appeal No.268 of 1999
Decided On : 30.07.2010

Advocates Appeared:
for the appellant : Sri Surendra Desai
for the Respondents: Sri Ramachandra Rao

Headnote:

Transfer of Property,1882 – Second Appeal - Petitioner for relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and mandatory injunction in respect of ‘B’ schedule property - It was pleaded that they own land - Complaint was that appellant herein, who figured as defendant No.5 has raised a hut in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents described I ‘B’ schedule and is causing obstruction to their access – Held, court says that Through its judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit. A.S. filed by appellant in Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, was dismissed - Their principal grievance was against the appellant and their complaint against respondents 8 to 11 was mostly about their inaction to remove the encroachment – Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT:

1. Respondents 1 to 7 filed O.S.No.142 of 1994 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Chirala, against respondents 8 to 11 and the petitioner herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and mandatory injunction in respect of ‘B’ schedule property. It was pleaded that they own land nearby the Highway Sopirala of Chirala Mandal, and they have access to the Highway through a Gramakantam admeasuring Ac.0.12 cents, described in the ‘A’ schedule. Their complaint was that the appellant herein, who figured as defendant No.5 has raised a hut in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents described I ‘B’ schedule and is causing obstruction to their access. Their principal grievance was against the appellant and their complaint against respondents 8 to 11 was mostly about their inaction to remove the encroachment.

2. The respondent alone contested the matter. He filed a written statement, stating that respondents 1 to 7 themselves have encroached into Gramakantam of Ac.0.12 cents and the hut raised by him does not at all access to the Highway. Through its judgment, dated 29.02.1996, the trial Court decreed the suit. A.S.No.13 of 1996, filed by the appellant in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, was dismissed on 19.02.1999. Hence, the Second Appeal.

3. Sri Surendra Desai, learned counsel for the appellants There shall be no order as to costs.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top