APHC010508942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2025 Between: 1. KANCHI SATYANARAYANA @ PEDA BULLIYYA, S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 5-61, EEDARADA VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. TATIPAKA RAMACHANDRA MURTHY DEVASTHANAM, , TATIPAKA, REPRESENTED BY KATIKIREDDI NAGA - VENKATA SRIRAMA RAO, S/O LATE PALLAMRAJU, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 8-257, TATIPAKA VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. KANCHI RAMBABU, S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 4-74, EEDARADA VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR- KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. KANCHI SEKHAR, S/O RAMBABU, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 4- 74, EEDARADA VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The appellants, who are the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.71 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole, aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2023, dated 28.08.2025, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, filed the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2) The respondent/ plaintiff filed the said suit against the appellants / defendants for a mandatory injunction directing them to remove all obstructions to the line of contact X1 Y of the plaint plan to the road on the North of the plaint plan and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from ever interfering with the line of contact X, X1 to the road on the North. 3) Before the learned trial Court it was inter alia stated that the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents (A1 marked portion of the plaint plan) originally belonged to one Mr.Katikireddy Sriramulu, who gifted the same to Ramalayam (Temple) situated in Tatipaka centre under a Gift Deed dated 25.05.1982, that one Mr. K.N.V.Sri Ramarao, the grandson of the said Mr.Katikireddy Sriramulu, is representing the temple and managing it. It is further stated that there is public road on the North of A1 marked portion which is a gravel road called Eadarada road and leads to a cement road on the west, that the road has width of 37 feet, and to further North there is Bodi (Field channel), the line X X1 Y which has got a total length of 130 feet is the line of 3 contact with plaint schedule property to the road on the north, that the plaintiff temple has got right of access to the road on the north at every point on X X1 Y line and the defendants / appellants by encroaching into D1, D2, D3 marked portion raised houses and interfering with the line of contact. It is further averred that neither the Government nor Panchayat has got any right also to obstruct the line of contact and as the defendants / appellants are trying to encroach the remaining portion of the road margin shown as “A” of the plaint plan and thereby completely cut the access to the road, the suit is instituted. 4) The defendant No.1 / appellant No.1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint that there is no evidence for the plaintiff / respondent to represent the Tatipaka Sreeramachandramurthy Devastanam, that the 1st defendant is the elder brother of the 3rd defendant and their forefathers have encroached the road margin site, raised huts and used to reside therein since times immemorial; that the 3rd respondent obtained possession certificate in respect of an extent of Ac.0-01 ½ cents in R.S.No.19, from the revenue authorities vide proceedings dated 26.01.2008, that the 1st defendant converted the thatched house as tiled house and thereafter constructed a RCC Daba (building) top and has been paying the house taxes. It was also pleaded that by virtue of long uninterrupted enjoyment since time immemorial, he acquired title over the land by virtue of long possession and as such the respondent / plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. 4 5) The appellant No.3 / defendant No.3 filed a written statement taking similar pleas. Further that he obtained possession certificate in respect of an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in R.S.No.14 / 2B from the revenue authorities vide proceedings dated 22.01.2007 and constructed a pucca house and has been paying house taxes. 6) Basing on the said pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory Injunction as prayed for? ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? iii) To what relief? 7) In support of its case, the respondent/plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of appellants / defendants DWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 8) Learned Trial Court after thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence opined that the recitals in Ex.A1 dated 25.05.1982 i.e., registration extract of Gift Deed executed by Mr.K.Sriramulu in favour of the plaintiff’s temple are to be interpreted in broader sense that after the management of the temple Trustee Mr.K. Prabhakar, the same should be given to the person who takes management of the plaintiff’s deity and referring to the deposition of DW2 that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the said Mr.K.Sriramulu and PW 1 is no other than the grandson of Mr.K.Sriramulu and is representing the plaintiff’s deity, rejected the contention that PW 1 is not 5 having any locus to file the suit. The learned Trial Court also referred to the admissions in the written statement about the encroachment made by defendants / appellants in the road margin, which are shown as D1, D2 and D3 in the plaint plan and concluded that the evidence of DW 1 and DW2 clearly speaks about the encroachments on the road margins which is abutting to X X1 Y line of contact with the plaint schedule property. 9) Referring to the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Satyaboyina Someswara Rao and Others v Sangesetti Tirupathamma and Others1, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the respondent / plaintiff’s temple is having the land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents and having the line of contact X, X1, Y of the plaint schedule property and it has every right to use the line of contact at every point and the defendants / appellants have no right to obstruct the plaintiff’s temple all along X, X1, Y line of contact. 10) In so far as the documents filed by the defendants / appellants, the learned Trial Court in respect of Ex.B1 (Patta issued in favour of the 3rd defendant) while observing that there is no reference to Ex.B1 in the written statement opined that evidence without pleadings is of no use in view of the settled position of law. The learned Trial Court had also not taken into consideration Ex.B2 on the premise that the same was not issued by the proper authority. Thus, considering the material available on record, as also taking into consideration the admissions made by the defendants / appellants 1 1988 (2) APLJ 469 6 during the cross-examination, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and granted mandatory injunction to remove all the constructions / obstructions from the line of contact X1, Y to the road on the North which is shown in the plaint plan and directed the defendants / appellants to remove the same within six months from the date of decree and granted liberty to the respondent / plaintiff to proceed by following due process of law, if the same is not done. It has also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants / appellants, their men etc., from ever interfering with the line of contact of X, X1 as shown in the plaint plan to the road on the North. 11) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the appellants / defendants filed AS No.3 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole. Before the learned Appellate Court, the appellants raised grounds inter alia that the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It was urged that the learned Trial Court went wrong in not holding that the respondent / plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, that the respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to pray for grant of mandatory injunction directly without praying for declaration of his right over the line of contact through every inch of road margin. It was also contended that the learned trial Court without showing any reason has ignored the valuable evidence adduced by the appellants by filing Ex.B1 to B4, that they have been in authorized possession and management of the site etc. Further that the decision in Satyaboyina Someswara Rao case (1 7 supra) is not applicable to the case on hand, that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 12) On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff that the order of the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit was based on detailed examination of the oral and documentary evidence, contains cogent reasons and that there is no illegality or perversity, muchless, contravention of law, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13) On a consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Appellate Court formulated the following points for consideration: i) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for Mandatory Injunction as prayed for? ii) Whether suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of right of line of contact over X1 Y marked portion of the plaint plan? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? iv) Whether PW1 is having locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff? v) Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is sustainable under law and on facts? 14) Learned Appellant Court appreciated the evidence on its own, considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants / defendants and the respondent / plaintiff. As regards points 1 to 3 referred to supra, the learned appellate Court rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants / defendants and upheld the arguments that even the Government cannot issue patta in respect of the road margin side. In this 8 regard, the learned appellate Court discussed the decision reported in Satyaboyina Someswara Rao case (1 supra) in detail. The learned Appellate Court also distinguished the judgment reported in K. Sathyamoorthy v R. Mohanudu2 relied on behalf of the appellants / defendants. In the light of the said decision and appreciating the material / evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court answered the points 1 to 3 in favour of the respondent / plaintiff holding that without seeking declaration of right over line of contact, suit for mere mandatory injunction is maintainable and that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction and also for permanent injunction as prayed for. 15) In so far as the point No.4 i.e., locus standi of PW 1 to file the suit on behalf of respondent / plaintiff, the learned Appellate Court referring to Exs.A4 to A7 held that the said documents clearly establishes that the PW 1 is managing the plaintiff’s temple and as such he is having locus standi to file the suit and answered the point accordingly. The learned Appellate Court passed a detailed judgment, supported by cogent reasons, and dismissed the appeal, there by confirmed the decree and judgment of the learned Trial Court. 16) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 17) Learned counsel for the appellants tried to impress upon the Court that the findings as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court are erroneous, without valid basis, liable to be set aside and the appeal 2 2024 (1) ALT 422 9 deserves to be allowed. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the order under Appeal. 18) On an appreciation of the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial questions of law arise for adjudication by this Court in the present Second Appeal. As regards authorization / locus standi of PW 1 to file the suit in question, the learned Trial Court after discussing the contents / recitals of Ex.A1 i.e., registration extract of Gift Deed executed by Mr.K. Sriramulu, grandfather of PW 1 in favour of the plaintiff’s temple recorded its categorical conclusions in para No.18 of the judgment. The Appellate Court has also discussed about the evidence adduced by the respondent / plaintiff i.e., Ex.A4 to A6. Both the Courts below concurrently found that PW 1 has locus standi to file the suit. Therefore, such factual findings do not raise any substantial question of law. 19) Further, the Courts below with reference to the legal position as laid down in the decisions referred to above, concurrently held that a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction without a prayer for declaration is maintainable and the findings recorded therefore warrants no interference, more particularly as no substantial questions of law is involved. 20) With regard to other substantial questions of law formulated referring to Exs.B1 to B4, the learned Trial Court had categorically recorded a finding that there is no mention about Ex.B1 (patta granted in favour of the 3rd defendant) in the written statement and that the evidence without pleadings is of no use and the opinion of the learned Trial Court is based on well settled position in 10 law. Ex.B1, in the absence of any pleadings in the written statement, would be of no help to the case of the 3rd defendant. So far as Exs.B2 is concerned the learned Trial Court had categorically recorded a finding that the same was not issued by the proper authority and even otherwise, the said certificate is of no legal efficacy in the light of the decision reported in Satyaboyina Someswara Rao (1 supra). The Appellate Court has also not given due weight to the said document in view of the settled legal position. 21) In view of the same, this Court see no reasons / grounds warranting interference by this Court to upset the concurrent findings. 22) For the afore going reasons the Second Appeal fails, more particularly as there are no substantial questions of law. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 23) Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, six months time is granted for vacating the suit schedule property. 24) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J DATE:26.09.2025 SSV 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA S.A.No.688 of 2025 Date:26.09.2025. Ssv