Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Choppa Ramachandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
P. Rangaiah Naidu – Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 22.12.2017 in A.S.No.71 of 2011, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati (“First Appellate Court” for short) confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 11.02.2011 in O.S.No.345 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents 1 to 18 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.345 of 2006.
During the pendency of first appeal, respondents 6, 16 and 3 are died and their legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 19 to 21; 22 to 25 and 26 to 30 respectively.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.345 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, with a prayer for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men, etc., from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' to 'R' schedule properties and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit. Felt
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.
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....
(1) Only when title is clear, Court can decide question of de jure possession.(2) Question of title can be decided only by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and not a suit for inju....
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, and a declaration of title is not necessary unless there is a genuine dispute over the title.
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.
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 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....
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
