Dismissed

Papaiahgari Aagaiah and 3 Others v. Papaiahgari Laxman

Telangana HC16 Apr 2021CRP/1356/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 and Section 151 CPC challenging an order refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that since the suit was for a perpetual injunction, rights depended on evidence, not boundary disputes.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; stay of proceedings refused; no order as to costs.

Papaiahgari Aagaiah and 3 Others Vs Papaiahgari Laxman — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

C R P.NO:^"1356 OF 2020

¶7

Petition under ArticlE 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.28109/2020 passed in 1.A.No.267 ol 2019 in 1.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.209 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sircilla, Karimnagar District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Papaiahgari Aagaiah, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agrl., Gundaram Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶10

Peddallo Kanakaiah, S/o Komuraiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Shephred, Gundaram village, Bejjanki lvlandal, Karimnagar District.

¶11

Yada Narsaiah, S/o Ailaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agrl., Gundaram Village, Be.jjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶12

Gayini Janawa, W/o Kistaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ. House wife, Gundaram village, Bejjanki [t4andal, Karimnagar District.

¶13

,..PETITIONERs/Defendants 1 to 4

¶14

AND

¶15

Papaiahgari Laxman, S/o. Ram Chandram, Aged.45^years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Gundavaram village, Bejjenki Mandal.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶17

IANO:1OF2 20

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleasedto stay all} further proceedings in O.S.No.209 of 2018, on the file of the court of the^Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar District^pending disposal of the^Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. Y. RAVINDRA PRASAD

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SIII .IUSTICE^{CHALLAKODANDA RAM} CIVIL REVISION l'}ETIl'lON^{No. 1356 ol' 2020} OIIDEII:

¶23

'l'his Civil Revision Pctitiorr is tlled against order dated 28.09.2020 passed by^{the learr.redAdditional .lunior Civil JLrdge,} Sircilla, Karimnagar, dismissing^{1.A.No.267 of2019in} I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.209 ot2020,^{filed by petitioners} herein/defendant Nos.i to 4 with a^{prayer to appoint advocate} commissioner to note down the^physical featr-tres of^{the suit land} lor proper adjudication of the matter.

¶24

A perusal of the plaint as well as the written^statement discloses that the respondent hercin/plaintilf^{is claimingrightin} thc suit schedr.rle propert)' based orr a Gifi^{Settlement I)eed,} rvhereas, the petitioners hct'cin/clcI'enclatrt Nos.l to^{4 are claiming} the suit schedule propert) b1'u'a1'ot'srtcccssion^{tiom their} ancestors.

¶25

It is to be noted that the suit being filed^{for perpetlral} injunction, the rights of the parties have to be^{decided based on} the evidence that may be adduced by either of the^{parties. This is} not a case where there is any boundary dispute. To^localizeand ascertain the actr-ral boundaries, the Advocate Clommissioner^is required to be appointed. 1'hoLrgh the lean.rcd counsel for^the

¶26

CKR, J C.R.P.No.1356 o12020

¶27

¶28

petitioners draws the attention ol this Court to the letter dated 19.07.2018 addrcsscd br,'thc'l'ahsildar to the Sub-lnspectol ol Policc, tlc.j.ianki, Karinrragar District, thc sanrc by itscll uould not be of any help in detennining the matter in issue, as, the issue is with respect to the rights of the pa(ies and the /ls in the suit has to be determined based on the evidence. In the circumstances. this Court is not inclined to interl'ere with the order under revlslon.

¶29

Accordingly, this Civit Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶30

Miscellaheous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶31

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

SDIK.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sircilla, Karimnagar^District.

¶38

One CC to Sri. Pearl Law Associales, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to Sri. Y. Ravindra Prasad,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies CDLgbr \ M-

)

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610412021

'rAI€
1 $E !i
+i
6
c
O 10 Hil{ 2021 ,},
)
"',c
l'....

ORDER

CRP.No.1356 of 2020

DISMISSING THE C.R.P

@94,.

Papaiahgari Aagaiah and 3 Others v. Papaiahgari Laxman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papaiahgari Aagaiah and 3 Others v. Papaiahgari Laxman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o.Late D.Narsimha Raju Vs M. Venkat Reddy, S/o M.Surender Reddy,Occu.Business

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Vs Mrs. Laiq Fatima

Smt.S. Keshava, Vs Smt.K.Parvati Rao

Mohd. Saleem Vs P Naveen Kumar

Gadela Ashok Vs Nannap Raju Sujatha

C.A. Dattatraya Rao Vs Telangana State Police Housing Corporation and Another