Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
M.Nagendram – Appellant
Versus
Guntur Sambrajyam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, assailing the decree and judgment, dated 30.06.2000, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in A.S.No.32 of 1997.
02. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant and Sri Srikanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the Respondents/Legal Representatives of the PlaintiffsNo.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.
PLEADINGS:
03. The appellant is the defendant. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The respondents No.3 to 8 who are impleaded as legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff, who died pending the Second Appeal. The respondents No.9 to 14 are impleaded as legal representatives of the 2nd plaintiff, who also died pending the Second Appeal. It is pertinent to note down that the suit was filed by the three persons. The 3rd plaintiff died pending the first appeal. The judgment of the First Appellate Court would disclose that the appeal of the 3rd plaintiff stands abated, as he died pending the first appeal, but no legal representatives came on record. Hence, the
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title and right to the property, which was affirmed by the court based on evidence of joint usage.
(1) Decree of permanent injunction cannot be granted by going against stipulations in agreement to sell.(2) Interpretation of Documents – Where language employed in instrument is clear and unambiguou....
Private road land - originally the suit land part of the land and that very same land standing recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 is noted as Private Road. This Plaintiff was not a party to the ....
The interpretation of the sale deed and the burden of proof were central to the Court's decision.
The plaintiff's failure to prove exclusive right over the suit lane and the court's reliance on documentary evidence to establish common ownership.
Co-owners can seek injunctions against each other to protect their rights, and findings from previous suits on common property usage are binding.
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
