BHIMAVARAPU LAXMA REDDY Vs. PALLOTHU ASWINI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code, for short) is directed against the decree and judgment dated 18.01.2010 of the learned VII Additional District Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), Vijayawada passed in AS. No. 112 of 2008 whereby the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the said first appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment dated 02.06.2008 of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada passed in OS. No. 2962 of 2004 filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property prior to 1992 and that the said possession was confirm by the possessory sale agreement dated 28.05.1992 and perfected title by adverse possession and for consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, followers, servants etcetera from ever interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over Ac. 4.00 cents of agricultural land out of total extent of Ac. 8.97 cents in R.S. No. 322 -1 of Pathapadu village of Vijayawada Rural Mandal more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff (the plaintiff, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the caveator -respondent/1st defendant (the 1st defendant, for brevity) at the stage of admission. I have perused the material record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal and therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted for disposal on merits.

(3.) WHETHER the courts below at least failed to grant injunction irrespective of suit property based on Ex. A1 & A.2 invoking Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act?