The second appeal against a decree confirming title declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed. The Single Judge held that no substantial question of law arose and the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts were not perverse.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO,
SECOND APPEAL No. 67 of 2004.
JUDGEMENT:
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgement and Decree dt. 22.10.2003 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle confirming the Judgement and Decree dt. 12.6.2001 in O.S.No. 196 of 1996 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
The defendants are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants.
The A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Depot Manager, Madanapalle filed O.S.No. 196 of 1996 for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule land. Subsequently by filing an application for amendment of the plaint, added the relief of declaration of title and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal constructions made in the suit schedule land.
According to the plaintiff, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the suit land for construction of APSRTC bus stand complex under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, after paying compensation to the individuals from whom the land was acquired. After completion of acquisition proceedings, the suit land has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff Corporation and that the defendants who have no right, title or possession on any part of the acquired land have started making illegal constructions in the suit land and therefore the suit was filed seeking the reliefs adverted to above.
The defendants filed their written statement contending that the suit land does not form part of Ac. 1.66 cents acquired by the Government and that the total extent of S.No. 294/1 was Ac. 1.88 cents and that the constructions made by them are outside the land acquired by the Government for the construction of APSRTC bus stand complex
and therefore the suit may be dismissed.
At the instance of the defendants, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of identifying the physical features and also for localising the suit land but the learned trial Court found that the Commissioner did not execute the warrant as per the directions mentioned therein and therefore the report of the Commissioner was not taken into consideration. Subsequently, another Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the second Advocate Commissioner submitted a report.
Before the trial court on behalf of the plaintiff, Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs:A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, Dws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs:B.1 to B.11 were marked. Exs:C.1 to C.4 were marked by the Court.
The trial court as well as the 1st Appellate court after thoroughly considering the entire evidence on record held that the defendants being the parties to the acquisition proceedings received the compensation without challenging the acquisition proceedings and after the acquisition proceedings have become final, it is not open for them to contend that some left over land belongs to them and that they are entitled for the same. The courts below also categorically held that the 1st defendant did not produce any documents for the purpose of measuring and demarcating the land in question. It was further held by both the courts below that from the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and Exs:A.1 to A.5, it can be safely concluded that the disputed property is part and parcel of S.No. 294/1A and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Both the courts below have found that the 1st defendant laid foundation on the property acquired for the plaintiff Corporation and the said foundation is liable to be removed. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff Corporation is entitled for declaration of right and title to the suit land and the same is also entitled to recover the same from the hands of the defendant No.1 by directing him to remove the illegal construction made by him in the suit land and accordingly decreed the suit as prayed
for.
This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Since the concurrent findings of fact are recorded basing on the evidence and pleadings of the parties, the said findings cannot be said to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
07.07.2011. KRB.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO,
SECOND APPEAL No. 67 of 2004.
JUDGEMENT:
07.07.2011.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal warrants interference under Section 100 C.P.C. regarding concurrent findings of fact.
R.KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
