This Second Appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for perpetual injunction. The appellant failed to prove possession of the alleged property and relied on a will executed after the testator's death, leading to the rejection of her claim for equitable relief.
Dismissed Second Appeal and ordered 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1051 OF 2016
JUDGMENT :
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.19.10.2016 in AS.No.148 of 2012 of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru confirming the judgment and decree dt.30.07.2012 in O.S.No.760 of 2009 of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.
2
dt.19.10.2004 in favour of the appellant. The appellant also pleaded that Premanandam died on 16.11.1990.
3
been issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Duggirala Panchayat, cannot be accepted since no body was examined by the appellant in support of the said certificate and there was no door number, extent, R.S.No. and boundaries mentioned therein. It observed that Ex.A6 approved plan filed by the plaintiff relates to a building, where as even according to the appellant, the structure in the plaint schedule property is an asbestos roofed shed. It held that the appellant failed to establish her possession over the plaint schedule property and is therefore not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction.
4
Premanandam, had boundaries different from those mentioned in the plaint schedule and in the settlement deed Ex.A3 and therefore it held that the appellant’s documents do not show possession of the appellant over the plaint schedule property.
5
possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, these findings cannot be said to be based on no evidence or perverse.
____________________________
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
16 th March, 2017
gra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a perpetual injunction regarding possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property.
Whether the appellant can claim equitable relief based on a will executed after the death of the testator.
Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding lack of possession are perverse or based on no evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Plaintiff/Appellant
1st Respondent
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
