Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Agharam Radhakrishna Reddy Died Per LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Talari Subramanyam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI 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 29.02.2016 in A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 08.07.2013 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.
2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are defendant Nos.1, 2 & 5; 1st respondent herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.During the pendency of this appeal, 1st appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 to 6.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of
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 injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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 prove possession of the property on the date of filing the suit; both lower Courts' findings supporting possession were affirmed.
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 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) Second appeal – Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula.(2) Second a....
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.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
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
