Back
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Kurakula Vasantharayudu – Appellant
Versus
Kurakula Arjunudu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 24-11-2011 in A.S.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06-8-2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.3 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant approached this Court by wa
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must prove possession of the property on the date of filing the suit; both lower Courts' findings supporting possession were affirmed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
