Dismissed

P. Bhaskar, v. Comer Stone World Challenge

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2024SA/264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the second appeal in a property suit for permanent injunction. Upholding the trial and appellate courts, the court found that the appellant admitted owning a separate house away from the suit property, negating claims of possession. Finding no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Permanent restraint to interfere with peaceful possession was not granted to the appellant as the appeal was dismissed.

P. Bhaskar, Vs Comer Stone World Challenge — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 264 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Bhaskar, S/o. P. Chinnaswamy, Aged about 62 years. (As perPlaint residing at D.No. 6-40, Vinayaka Nagar, Balaji Street, Penumuru town, Penumuru Mandal, Giiittoor District), Residing at Comer Stone world Challenge, Church, K.C. Palle road, Penumuru Town and Mandal, Chittoor • » District.

¶9

...APPELLANT AND

¶10

Comer Stone World Challenge,, Banglore, Rep. by its President, Queeny Stephen, Aged about 60 years. Christian. Office at No. 49. Hutches Road Street, Thomas Town, Bangalore, Karnataka^- 560084.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Appeal under section 100 against orders pleased to allow the Second Appeal with costs by setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed by I Additional Junior Division Civil Judge, Chittoor in O.S. No. 291 of 2010 dated 13-10- 2017 which was confirmed by the decree and Judgment passed by the Learned Principal District Judge,^{ChittoorinA.S.} No. 148 of 2017 dated 06-12-2023.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶14

Petition under Section 151, CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Decree and Judgement passed by Hon’ble 1st Additional junior Division Civil Judge,^{ChittoorinO.S.No.291} of 2010 dated 13-10-2017 which was confirmed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor in A.S. No. 148 of 2017 dated 06-12-2023 pending disposal of the Second appeal

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. V NITESH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶17

The Court made the following: JIUDGMENT

¶18

RRR.J SANo.264 of 2024

APHC010149192024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

[3206]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

FRIDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

SECOND APPEAL NO: 264/2024

Between:

P. Bhaskar,

...APPELLANT

AND

Comer Stone World Challenge

¶34

...RESPONDENT

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶36

1.VNITESH

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶38

1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶39

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶40

Heard Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondentplaintiff.

¶41

The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.291 of 2010^beforethe I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for permanent injunction restraining the appellant, and others claiming through him, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the respondent.

RRR.J SANo.264of2024

The said plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.5.41 cents of land in Sy.No.478 of Penumuru Revenue Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, including a terraced residential building and an asbestos^{sheetroofedchurch} situated in the land!

¶46

The case of the respondent, in the plaint, was that the respondent had purchased the land in the suit schedule property under a registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2005 from the original owners and had subsequently constructed an asbestos roofed building to be used^{asachurchandanRCC} residential building as the residential quarters of the pastor of the church. The respondent had obtained electricity service connection^{forthechurchandthe} house and was paying electricity consumption charges to the department. The respondent had undertaken development of the property by raising various additional amenities and structures. At that stage, the appellant had approached the respondent and had requested that he should be appointed as pastor to the church of the respondent. After considering^{thisrequest,the} respondent had appointed the appellant as a pastor on honorary basis after obtaining an undertaking from the appellant that the appellant can be removed at any time or replaced by any other pastor at the sole discretion^of the pastor A. Stephen, who was the founding president of the respondent. Though^the appellant had voluntarily undertook not to claim any^{remunerationasservices} of the pastor, the respondent had been: paying remuneration^to the appellant. by way of an honorarium.

¶47

¶48

RRR.J SANo.264 of 2024

¶49

Being dissatisfied with the services performed by the appellant the respondent, by a resolution dated 25.01 2010 had removed the appellant as pastor of the church and had appointed pastor Sammraj^{toruntheactivities} of the respondent. After the appointment, pastor Sammraj took possession of the plaint schedule property including the church and the residential building and has been performing his duties as pastor. However, the appellant taking advantage of the fact that the President and Committee^members of the respondent stay at Bengaluru, had sought to evict pastor Sammraj. This attempt of the appellant was resisted by pastor Sammraj. In order to stop any further damage, the respondent had approached the trial Court by way of O.S.No.291 of 2010.

¶50

The appellant filed his written statement in the suit claiming that he had been working as a pastor for 18 years in the^{churchofPenumurand} the respondent learning about the excellent work being done by the appellant had requested him to use the land purchased by the respondent to construct a church and residential quarters and to carry on his pastoral activities from the said church. Accordingly, the appellant had constructed the church building \ and the residential quarter with his own money and had been living in the said residential quarter. However, the president of the respondent society having developed ill-will against the appellant, on account of his popularity, had sought to evict him. Thereupon, the appellant had moved^{thevacationCourt} Chittoor by way of O.S.No.17 of 2010, which was transferred to the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and numbered^{asO.S.No.253of2010.}

¶51

¶52

RRR,J . S.A.No.264 of 2024 T*

¶53

This suit was filed by the appellant against Sri A. Stephen, the then president of the respondent-society and Sri T. Sammraj and one Ashirvadam, who was a police officer. This suit, filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, was pending by the time the written statement was filed.

¶54

The defendant filed an additional written statement also stating that certain pleadings had been amended in the plaint after filing of chief examination of PW.1 and cross-examination had been completed and that such change in the pleadings is not permissible and should be disregarded.

¶55

The respondent examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A. 17. The appellant examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs. B.1 to B.10.

¶56

The trial Court, after consideration of the evidence placed before it as well as the submissions made on both sides, had held that it was the respondent, who was in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the appellant was not in possession of the property. The^trial Court also held that the respondent had been able to demonstrate that the church building and the residential quarters are built by the respondent and not the appellant and the property tax and electricity charges have been paid by the respondent and that the claim of the appellant that he had constructed the buildings was not accepted. On this basis the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent.

¶57

¶58

RRR.J S.A.No.264 of 2024

¶59

¶60

The appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment^anddecree of the trial Court dated 13.10.2017, had moved the Court of the Principal District Judge. Chittoor, by way of A.S.No.148 of 2017. The appellant had raised the issues raised before the trial Court to contend that he was in possession of the property. Apart from relying upon the exhibits, which had been marked before the trial Court, the appellant had also filed an application to receive certain additional documents for the purpose of marking them as , evidence. This application was allowed. Thereafter, the appellant did not choose to take any steps for marking the said documents. In such a situation, the appellate Court ought not to have gone through the said documents. However the appellate Court went through those documents^alsoandhad affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶61

There is no dispute that the land of the suit schedule property had been purchased by the respondent by way of a registered^{deedofsale.Both} the appellant and respondent claim that the construction^{madeinthatsitewas} made by them and not the other side in the suit. To^{ascertainastowhoisin} possession, both the trial Court and the appellate^{Courttookintoaccountthe} admissions of DW.1 (appellant herein) and DWs.2 & 3 that the appellant has his own house about half a kilometer away from the suit schedule property. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court also took^{intoaccountthefactthat} the property tax was being paid in the name of the respondent and that the electricity dues arising out of the electrical connection were being paid in the

¶62

name of the respondent only.

¶63

¶64

RRR.J , S.A.No.264of2024

¶65

On the basis of these facts, both the trial Court and the appellate Court held in favour of the respondent that it is in possession of the property and granted injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the said * possession.

¶66

This Court was taken through the judgments as well as the pleadings raised in the trial Court and the appellate Court. This Court, after going through the entire record placed before it, does not find any reason to deviate from the finding of both the trial Court and the appellate Court that, the admission of the witnesses for the appellant that the appellant owns and is staying in a house close to the suit schedule property is sufficient proof that the appellant was not in possession of the suit schedule property and is not residing in the suit schedule property.

¶67

In such circumstances, this Court does not find any^substantial question of law that needs to be answered. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.There shall be no orderas to costs.

¶68

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶69

¶70

SD/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Junior Division Civil Judge, Chittoor

¶75

r--

¶76

The Principal District Judge, Chittoor

¶77

/ /

¶78

^One CC to Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶79

One CC to M/s. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶80

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶81

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT DATED:19/07/2024

¶86

ORDER

¶87

SA.Nb.264 of 2024

¶88

m
g 2 6 JUL 202'* 09
^ , Current Section
"'•j
-TV

¶89

DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

P. Bhaskar, v. Comer Stone World Challenge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Bhaskar, v. Comer Stone World Challenge

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

Duvvuru Mohan Reddy Vs Kintrapakam Uma Maheswar Rao

S Satyanarayanamma Vs K v R R Raju

Palgudi Santhamma Vs v Rajamma

Mrs. Godata Laxmi Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary

Ramakka Vs Muneppa

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju Vs Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy