Disposed

Samanthula Vasanthalaxmi, v. Althi Kishore

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2021CRP/68/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial Court's refusal to appoint a Commissioner. TheCourt held that since the suit is in the initial stage, the plaintiff can file a fresh application post-trial if she establishes the original extent of the purchased site, at which point the trial court must consider the request.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a fresh application for appointment of Commissioner after trial completion; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Samanthula Vasanthalaxmi, Vs Althi Kishore — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Civil Revision Petition No.68 of 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Heard Smt. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, counsel representing Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Ambati Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶4

2. As can be seen, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.181/2020, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan mentioned ABCD marked portion on the main ground that the plaintiff failed to file any document to show about the disputed measurements and she filed the plaint schedule basing on the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 09.10.2006 and she has not filed any document to show the disputed measurements. The Court further observed that the plaintiff could now show prima facie evidence either oral or documentary to show that there was a dispute regarding the remaining extent of 28 feet x 1.50 feet site. On these observations the trial Court expressed its disinclination to appoint the Commissioner.

¶5

3. As can be seen, the suit is at the inceptional stage and the trial has not yet commenced. The suit is for mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal construction of shops allegedly made by the defendants in the plaint schedule site, morefully shown in the plaint

¶6

¶7

plan mentioned ABCD red marked portion, and for permanent injunction.

¶8

4. Having regard to the nature of the suit and considering that the suit is in the neonatal stage, this Court is of the considered view that after the trial is completed and if the plaintiff is able to establish that originally she purchased 3 RCC shops in an extent of 28 feet x 12 feet and the constructions made by the defendants fall within any portion of the aforesaid extent purchased by her, she is at liberty to file a fresh application seeking appointment of the Commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule shown in the plaint plan as ABCD marked portion and to make measurements and note down the boundaries etc, in which case the trial Court shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order.

¶9

5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶10

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶11

20.03.2021 MVA

Samanthula Vasanthalaxmi, v. Althi Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samanthula Vasanthalaxmi, v. Althi Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pothini Venkatadri, Vs Smt. Koduri Padma

Kakarla Gangaraju Vs Tenneru Bala Muralikrishna

M/s. Ellison Oil Field Services Private Limited, Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Gurram Seetha Ramamma Vs Surapaneni Venkata Ratnam

Gurram Seetha Ramamma Vs Surapaneni Venkata Ratnam

Gurram Seetha Ramamma Vs Surapaneni Venkata Ratnam