The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.788 and 789 of 2014
Dated 18.09.2014
Between:
Meka Bujji Parameswara Rao …Appellant And Koneru Venkata Krishna Rao and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Chandrasekhar for Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Mr.P.R.Prasad The Court made the following:
Order:
The parties in these two Appeals are common and they arise out of common suit. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together at the interlocutory stage with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
The appellant filed OS.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam (for short ‘the lower Court’), for declaration that he is the registered owner of Ac.1-40 cents of land in RS.No.180 of 2011 of Lakshmipuram Village, Challipalli Mandal, Krishna District; for grant of injunction against the respondents and persons claiming through them from interfering with the appellant’s possession of plaint schedule property and for costs. Along with the suit, the appellant filed IA.No.11 of 2012 for temporary injunction against the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the appellant has filed another application being IA.No.230 of 2012 to restrain the respondents from changing the character of the suit schedule property by spreading debris over the green grass and making any construction over the said property, pending the suit. Thereafter, the appellant as well as the respondents have filed two separate applications viz., IA.Nos.273 and 274 of 2012 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for measuring the land with the aid of a surveyor and submitting their report. The said applications were allowed and an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for the said purpose. The Advocate- Commissioner has, accordingly, filed his report. The Mandal Surveyor also filed his report. In his report, the Mandal Surveyor has stated that the boundaries of the suit schedule property, as mentioned in the sale deed of the appellant, did not tally with those found on ground on physical verification. On consideration of the survey report of the Mandal Surveyor, the lower Court has dismissed both the applications filed by the appellant by rendering a finding that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case.
Upon carefully considering the impugned common order passed by the lower Court and the material on record, it is evident that while there is no serious title dispute relating to Ac.1-40 cents of land claimed by the appellant, the only dispute that needs to be resolved is whether the respondents have encroached upon any part of the said property. A perusal of the survey report shows that the same is ambiguous and not sufficient to decide this dispute. The lower Court, therefore, needs to appoint a surveyor afresh for making a comprehensive survey and demarcation of the boundaries relating to the suit schedule property in order to ascertain whether the respondents have encroached upon any part thereof.
Be that as it may, the evidence put forth by the appellant so far is also not sufficient to hold that the respondents are in occupation of any part of the suit schedule property. Unless the appellant produces the evidence in the suit, to substantiate his plea that the respondents are in occupation of the suit schedule property, he is not entitled to grant of injunction as claimed by him in both the applications. The lower Court has rightly dismissed these applications and I do not find any reason to interfere with the detailed orders passed therein.
Subject to the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are, dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2012, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th September, 2014 LUR