V. VENKATESH Vs. AMMANI NAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 58/2012 dated 25.08.2014 by Principal Senior Civil Judge (CJM), Chickballapur, whereunder appeal filed by unsuccessful defendant came to be dismissed and judgment and decree passed by Principal Civil Judge, Chickballapura, dated 30.01.2012 in O.S. No. 153/2005 came to be affirmed, whereunder trial Court had granted an order of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for appellant. It is the contention of Sri. Nitish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, for appellant that very grant made in favour of plaintiffs vendor Sri. P.M. Mathew has since been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner and when Revenue Authorities have consistently held that defendant is in possession of suit schedule property, Courts below could not have decreed the suit for perpetual injunction and granted a decree of permanent injunction. He contends that there is erroneous appreciation of evidence by the Courts below and also non consideration of material evidence available on record and thereby it has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice and as such, Substantial Question of Law as formulated in the appeal memorandum would arise for being formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of appellant/defendant as arising inter se between the parties. Hence, he prays for admitting the appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and decree passed by Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that there is no Substantial Question of Law involved in this appeal for being framed, adjudicated and answered for reasons indicated herein below: