VANNALA KOTESHWAR RAO Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed O. S. No. 1329 of 2002 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, warangal, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is the absolute owner of the property, comprising of 562 square yards with compound wall and fencing, bearing municipal No. 10/692/8, corresponding to new No. 10-8-86 of Girmajipet, Warangal. He traced his title to the land, through a sale deed, dated 21. 10. 1974. Alleging that the respondent is interfering with his possession, the appellant sought for the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondent denied the very title of the appellant as well as the possession over the suit schedule property. Even the correctness of the description of the property was doubted. Through its judgment, dated 8. 2. 2007, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the same, the appellant filed A. S. No. 21 of 2007 in the Court of V Additional district Judge, Warangal. The appeal was dismissed on 27. 4. 2007. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) SRI K. V. Bhanu Prasad, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though it is not at all necessary for his client to prove title, in a suit for injunction, he has filed the sale deed of himself and his vendor, and to prove his possession, he has filed tax receipts. He further submits that the trial Court has already appointed a commissioner and despite the positive finding in the report, the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the appeal. He contends that the view taken by the lower appellate Court as regards non-compliance with Section 685 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act (for short 'the Act'), as made applicable to the Warangal municipal Corporation, is without basis, since no plea, in this regard, was raised by the respondent.

(3.) THE suit was filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue, touching upon the same. On behalf of the appellant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and exs. A. 1 to A. 13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. Bl to B6 were marked. In addition to this, the trial Court has taken on record Exs. Cl to C29.