Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Pepakayala Chakrarao S/o Lovaraju – Appellant
Versus
Kompella Suryanarayana S/o Late Veerraju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 24.01.2015 in A.S.No.147 of 2012 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011 in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.645 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents etc. from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner till completion of 99 years lease period from 12th March, 1967 and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal can only be entertained when a substantial question of law arises, not mere factual disputes or allegations lacking proof.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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 in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
A tenant cannot acquire title against the true owner, and the rights of subsequent purchasers are protected under law, emphasizing the obligation to vacate upon lease termination.
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.
In disputes involving conflicting title claims, a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent declaration of title, reaffirmed by the necessity of evidencing lawful possess....
The suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud, requiring a declaration of title for proper adjudication.
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
