IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAAY THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No. 476 OF 2014 Between:
Sondi Martin & Anr. … Appellants/Plaintiffs V/s.
Devupalli Ananda Rao & Ors. … Respondents/Defendants Counsel for Appellants : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for Respondents : None appeared The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2014 JUDGMENT :
This second appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 28/01/2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, confirming judgment and decree dated 01/12/2006 passed in OS.No.22 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbilli, Vizianagaram district.
2. Heard Advocate for appellants.
3. Advocate for appellants submitted that Ex.B-2, which is a third party document, is relied on by the courts below to accept the contention of defendants that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and also relied on Ex.B-1, which is a un-registered mortgage-cum-conditional sale and relying on these documents, the suit of plaintiffs is dismissed and considering these two documents attracts substantial questions of law.
4. I have perused the judgments of both the courts below and Exs.B-1 and B-2 are relied on by trial court for collateral purpose of yproving possession in respect of schedule property but these two documents are not considered for enforcement of those two documents.
5. On a perusal of judgments of both courts no substantial question of law is involved and it is purely a factual aspect, which both courts after appreciation of evidence on record found that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit. If plaintiffs are owners of disputed property, the remedy of plaintiffs is not suit for injunction and it is other wise, like suit for declaration and possession but not injunction. Therefore, this second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage, as no substantial question of law is involved.
6. As a sequel, miscellaneous application if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
23/7/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2014 Circulation No.84 Date: 23 /07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43