Rayalla Venkata Swamy, v. Rayi Ramaiah,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI SECOND APPEAL No.136 of 2016 O R D E R:
The plaintiff in O.S.No.843/2008, on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, is the appellant in the present second appeal.
2. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available before the Court.
3. The appellant herein instituted suit O.S.843/2008, on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole, against the respondents herein for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants for removal of 'G' marked gate way and for closing of P1 to P3 pipelines arranged into X, X1 marked compound wall projected into plaintiff's A5 and A7 marked vacant site; and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men and followers from interfering in any of the plaintiff's exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
4. Basing on the pleadings available on record, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
5. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 on his behalf and did not mark any documents. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by duly taking into consideration the entire material available on record and the
judgment of this Court in the case of KACHANA PADMAVATHI AND ANOTHER v. PRODDATUR MUNICIPALITY, PRODDATUR AND OTHERS[1], dismissed the suit. The trial Court also categorically found that the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden and failed to prove the ownership to the property.
6. As against the said Judgment and Decree rendered by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, plaintiff/the appellant herein preferred A.S.No.147 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The learned appellate Judge framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the Appellant/plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled?
7. The learned Appellate Judge, on analysis of the material available on record, refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court while coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his case with convincing evidence and cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendants case, if any. As against the said judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred.
8. The material available on record, in clear and unequivocal terms, reveals that the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered all the aspects in a meticulous manner and held against the appellant herein. It is a well established proposition of law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available only when the substantial question of law is involved and in the instant second appeal this Court does not find any such substantial question of law for interference with the findings recorded by the Courts below under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8. Having regard to the findings recorded by the trial Court and the
lower appellate Court, this Court does not find any justification nor any valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Accordingly, as the Second Appeal does not merit any consideration, it is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date:26.02.2016 grk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI SECOND APPEAL No.136 of 2016 Dated 26th February, 2016 grk
[1] 2007 (3) ALD 614