Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
B. Subba Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Velaga Rama – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 18-7-2022 in A.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 03-02-2016 in O.S.No.56 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.
2. The appellant herein is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.56 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.56 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajuwaka, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his kith and kin, agents, servants and all his men from in any way, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, decreed the suit with costs by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant and his men not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsu
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.
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.
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.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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.
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.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
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.
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....
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
