Back
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Jannada Ramanayya – Appellant
Versus
Bobbadi Govindarao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022 in A.S. No. 80 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 25.06.2018 in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to evict the defendant and deliver vacant possession of plaint schedule property to him and in the event of default, to do so, evict the defendant and put the plaintiff in peaceful possession through process of law and direct the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year from the date of suit to till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessf
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is not maintainable unless substantial questions of law arise, which was not the case here.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
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.
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.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
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.
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
