Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
G. Manohara Reddy – Appellant
Versus
K. Chandrasekhar Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. 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 09.08.2011 in A.S.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty (“First Appellate Court” for short) reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 28.10.2009 in O.S.No.225 of 2003, on the file of the Junior Civil, Gooty (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.225 of 2003. During the pendency of the second appeal, 1st respondent died, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are added as legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.225 of 2003, with a prayer for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the plaint schedule property.
4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the
A legal right to a permanent injunction exists to protect lawful possession from interference, irrespective of ownership claims.
A gift deed executed by a party without valid title is void; ownership must be established through a registered document as per the Transfer of Property Act.
The validity of a registered gift deed does not require consideration, as long as possession is delivered, confirming property rights to the donee.
A registered gift deed cannot be revoked or cancelled unilaterally without the consent of the donee. Such unilateral cancellation deed does not bind the donee.
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.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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 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.
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
