Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Kilari Narasimhu lu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Bandaru @ Bellam Venkatramaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2018, passed in A.S.No.100 of 2011 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (in short “the first appellate court”) in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.07.2011 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2005 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (in short “the trial court”).
2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.
3. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff; respondents are the defendants before the courts below.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties i.e. Plot No. 45, 46 and 47 and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, followers etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for damages.
The averments in the plaint, in brief are as under:-
One Beegala Munaswamy was the original owner of Ac.3-00 cents of land comprised to Pimash No.464 and S.No.240/4 of Tiruchanur village accounts. The said One Beegala Mu
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
Point of law: High Court cannot set aside findings of fact of the first appellate court and come to a different conclusion on reappraisal of evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C....
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
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.
The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.
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
