Andhra Pradesh High Court
SA/31/2020 of POTNURU RAMANA Vs THAMMINA APPALA NARASAYYA on 31 December 2020
SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN SECOND APPEAL NO.31 OF 2020 JUDGMENT: The present Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam, confirming the Judgment in O.S.No.592
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
SECOND APPEAL NO.31 OF 2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The present Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam, confirming the Judgment in O.S.No.592 of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing the relief of Permanent injunction.
2. The Appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.592 of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and the appellants before the lower appellate court in A.S.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Visakhapatnam. The appellants herein/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.592 of 2009 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs with costs. The trial court came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs could not establish their possession over the suit schedule property and the evidence on record discloses that the defendants are in possession of the said property. Since the plaintiffs could not establish their possession over the schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit, the trial court dismissed the suit on merits without grant of any relief.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein went in preferring the appeal in A.S.No.227 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam. After considering the case of the appellants therein, the lower appellate court also came to a conclusion that the appellants could not establish their possession with respect to the suit schedule property and as such, the lower appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal before it. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants herein came in second appeal before this Court.
4. Heard.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the judgments of the courts below, this Court comes to a conclusion that besides not establishing the possession over the suit schedule property, the appellants could not make out any case for admission showing the substantial question of law in the second appeal and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Second Appeal shall stand closed.
31.12.2020 mp
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN