GUTTULA MUNISETTI Vs. GUTTULA DHARMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Kurella Subrahmanyam, representing the appellant and Sri Chidambaram representing the 1st respondent.

(2.) The only substantial question of law pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant runs as follows:

(3.) Per contra, Sri Chidambaram, the learned Counsel had pointed out that in a matter of this nature, it may have to be compared as to who is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. The learned Counsel also pointed out that as far as Ex. A-1 is concerned it is for the Gram Panchayat to question validity of the said document if the concerned Gram Panchayat is so aggrieved. The learned Counsel also further commented that prima facie as per the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, this property is vested in the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat had permitted the 1st respondent/plaintiff to plant coconut trees and in default of payment of the fee payable to the Gram Panchayat during any year, the Gram Panchayat is at liberty to proceed with auction without issuing any notice. The Counsel would submit that hence this document is a permission simpliciter and in the light of the stand taken by the defendants, inasmuch as they claimed rights of way by encroachment, a comparison may have to be made who is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in a case of this nature. In the said circumstances, inasmuch as the 1st respondent/plaintiff is having better rights, the appellate Court is well justified in reversing the Judgment and decree of the Court of first instance. The learned Counsel also pointed out that at any rate in a suit for perpetual injunction simpliciter, this cannot be a substantial question of law at all for the reason that the concerned Gram Panchayat is not disputing Ex. A-1 and hence the Gram Panchayat was not even added as a party and the defendants who have nothing to do with this property cannot dispute Ex. A-1 transaction.