A P SUBBARAYUDU Vs. R ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Prasad, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri Raghuveer, learned counsel representing respondents 2 to 7, the legal representatives of the 1st respondent.

(2.) This Court on 2.4.1990 made the following order: "Admit. The substantial questions of law are stated in the ground Nos.1 to 6 of the Second Appeal". The said grounds referred to supra appear to be a bit elaborate. However, the said grounds raised by the appellant are as hereunder:

(3.) Sri Ram Prasad, learned counsel representing the appellant would submit that a suit for mere injunction without praying for declaration of title, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be maintained. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CULTOR FOOD SCIENCE INC vs. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LIMITED 2001(6) ALT 706. The learned counsel also would further contend that the documentary evidence placed before the Court, apart from the oral evidence, would clearly go to show that the appellant-defendant in the suit as auction purchaser is the owner of this portion of the property also, for which the sale certificate and the boundaries clearly establish the same; hence there cannot be any dispute or controversy that the appellant-defendant is the owner of the property and in view of the same, the learned counsel would contend that a true owner of the property cannot be restrained by means of a perpetual injunction. The counsel while further elaborating his submissions would maintain that either Ramakka or atleast the heirs concerned with Ramakka may have to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances and in view of the same, the matter either may be remanded or atleast a finding may be called for by giving opportunity to the parties to let in further evidence to be recorded in relation thereto. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard.