APHC010488592022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 423/2022 Between:

Sri. B. Subba Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Velaga Rama ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent:

1. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU The Court made the following:

Judgment:

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 unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/

appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.56 of 2011, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property to an extent of 482 square yards of house site plot Nos.222B & 15 in Survey Nos.64/4 & 64/8 situated at Vadlapudi village under a registered sale deed dated 19-12-2003 for a valid consideration from one Gudibandi Srinivas Reddy and another. The vendors purchased the said property under registered sale deeds dated 29-12-1989 and 05-8-1988. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of purchase. She incurred huge amount for construction of foundation towards south-west corner of the plaint schedule property and cement poles with barbed wire were erected. The defendant is a stranger to the plaint schedule property. On 26-02-2011, he tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property and that the suit was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

7. The defendant filed a written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and he further contended as follows:

It is contended that the suit is filed to grab the property of Raghu Ram and Kiran, who are the lawful owners in physical possession and enjoyment of an extent of 874 square yards of site in Survey No.61/9 of Vadlapudi village. The plaint schedule property does not exist and the plaintiff gave wrong schedule with an ulterior motive. There are no plot Nos.222B & 15 in Survey Nos.64/4 & 64/8 of Vadlapudi village comprising the plaint schedule extent. No layout has been filed by the plaintiff. The sale deeds under which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the plaint schedule property are invalid and sham documents, devoid of title or possession. T