Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Shaik Reddy Basha – Appellant
Versus
Kalpavalli Venkataramana Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venuthurumalli 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 27.06.2017 in A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2012 in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.
2. The appellant herein is defendant and respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.28 of 2009, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from encroaching and causing any obstruction in the plaint schedule rasta shown as ABIGH portion in the plaint plan and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.3 of 2012, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. The learned V Additional District Judge, Rayac
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right to the property, which they failed to do.
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 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.
The dissolution of previous rights after land acquisition and the plaintiff's failure to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is upheld in injunction suits despite title disputes, reaffirming the principle of protecting long settled possession from forcible eviction without due process.
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.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession and incidental title to the property. Clear title supported by documents is necessary to claim perm....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
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
