RONDA NARAPA REDDY Vs. RONDA SURYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri Anand, counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) SRI Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal : Whether the Courts below are legally justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, though such a relief was not prayed for ?

(3.) PER contra, Sri Anand, learned counsel representing the respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by both the Courts below in general and the findings recorded by the appellate Court at para 18 of its Judgment in particular and had pointed out that it is clear from the 2nd Commissioner's report that subsequent to the granting of temporary injunction, the defendants closed the canal obstructing the flow of water and hence, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration in fitness of things, the relief of mandatory injunction also had been granted. The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that this relief of mandatory injunction was granted on the ground of equity suo motu and there is no specific relief prayed for in this regard in the pleadings. However, the counsel would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the relief of mandatory injunction is disturbed on this technical ground, substantial justice would not be done to the respondent-plaintiff, inasmuch as it is clear from the facts that he would suffer heavy loss.