DAKKILI SIVA NARAPA REDDY Vs. GADDAM PENCHALA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant-defendant and Sri Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff and also Cross-objector.

(2.) Sri Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant- defendant had drawn the attention of this Court to the following substantial questions of law specified in Ground No.9 (i) to (vii):

(3.) Per contra, Sri Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent- plaintiff-Cross-objector had pointed out to the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed and had submitted that when a finding was recorded that the plaintiff has been in long uninterrupted possession for atleast a period of 20 years, on the strength of possessory title, the plaintiff is definitely entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the whole world except the true owner. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.Ws.l and 5, father-in-law of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as well and also the supporting evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. The learned Counsel pointed out that the nature of the property also may have to be looked into while granting the relief. The material available on record would clearly disclose that the property is only a channel poramboke and hence, there is no question of keeping this property joint at the time of partition as contended by the appellant- defendant. The learned Counsel also would contend that in such a case, the question of co-ownership and not granting a perpetual injunction as against such a co-owner definitely would not arise. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C.Alexander and others, AIR 1968 SC 1165 and Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza, (1999) 4 SCC 403.