The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of injunction is impermissible when both parties are in possession of the property and there is no exclusive possession by the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant in the Second Appeal is plaintiff in the trial Court and respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

2. Property in dispute between the parties is a house bearing Door No.26/1-812 with RCC construction and vacant site situated in Kondayapalem area of Nellore Municipal Corporation limits. It is in Survey No.440, Plot No.26 in D-Block of Bhakthavatsala Nagar, N.G.O Colony, Nellore. The woman by name Gaju Gullamma alias Garbani Juli married to a man and gave birth to a daughter by name Paniki Leela Kumari. The husband of the above referred woman by name Juli died and thereafter she married defendant No.1/Sri B. BalaBahadur in the year 2002. After the death of Smt.Juli, defendant No.1 B.BalaBahadur married defendant No.2 Smt.B. Rajamma. Thereafter Paniki Leela Kumari filed O.S..No.252 of 2018 as against her step father and wife of step father showing them as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in her suit. She prayed for declaration of a title over the plaint schedule property and for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of a part of the plaint schedule property namely Bedroom on Northern Side and asbestos room on western side and also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs and such other reliefs. Both the defendants together filed written statement resisting the prayer. After due trial, learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore by a judgment dated 19.07.2010 decreed the suit in part and dismissed the suit in part. Learned trial Court refused to grant the declaration of title and the recovery of possession that was sought for. However, it decreed the suit granting permanent injunction. It also declared that the plaintiff in the suit has got half share in the suit schedule property and the injunction that granted survives till an amicable partition takes place between the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. Plaintiff did not prefer any appeal in challenge to the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, defendants were aggrieved and they preferred A.S.No.143 of 2010. After due hearing, learned Additional District Judge, Nellore by a judgment dated 08.03.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the trial Court. As a result, the entire suit with all multiple reliefs claimed by the plaintiff stood dismissed. It is against that judgment of the learned first appellate Court, plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal under section 100 CPC.

4. A learned judge of this Court on 26.04.2013 admitted this Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in disallowing the relief of permanent injunction to the appellant in spite of finding that appellant is in possession of portion of the schedule property?”

Notices were taken out to respondents/defendants and they made their appearance.

5. Subsequently, by virtue of I.A.No.1 of 2022 after due hearing on both sides on 02.01.2023, the following additional substantial questions of law were also formulated:

1. Whether the judgment of the learned first appellate Court is vitiated for failure to advert to the application pending before it for production of additional evidence and thereby the judgment is perverse?

2. Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court could not be sustained for its perversity when it failed to appreciate Ex.A10 against Ex.B1?

6. The appellant, during the pendency of the Second Appeal, filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order XLI Rule 27(b) and Section 151 CPC for producing additional evidence and to get certain documents exhibited on plaintiff’s side as Exs.A5 and A6. She intended to have two documents on record namely proceedings issued by Tahsildar vide LPRB No.9072 of 2017 dated 30.11.2017 and an endorsement dated 23.01.2021 issued by the Public Information Officer under the provisions of Right to Information Act,2005.

7. Lear