KADAKANAKA SUBRAHMANYACHARYULU Vs. PERURI RAMALINGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok anand Kumar, the learned Counsel representing Sri Krishna Murthy Nayani, counsel for appellant/defendant and Sri c. C. S. Sastry, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) ON 20. 2. 1996, this Court made the following order:

(3.) SRI Ashok Anand Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/ defendant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that the appellate Court totally erred in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and the court of first instance recorded the evidence of PW. 1 and DW. l, marked Exs. A. l to a. 11 and after recording findings came to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. The Counsel also would maintain that the same was carried by way of Appeal AS No. 57/92 on the file of Additional District Judge, west Godavari at Eluru and the learned additional District Judge without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective reversed the Decree and judgment of the Court of first instance and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit. The learned Counsel pointed out to relevant portions of the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the appellate court and would maintain that when the report of the Commissioner is clear and categorical and clear findings had been recorded by the Court of first instance, the appellate Court reversing the same especially in the light of the recitals in Ex. A. 1 dated 11. 4. 1949 cannot be sustained. The counsel also had further pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence and certain of the admissions made by PW. l and the evidence of DW. l as well and would maintain that in the light of the substantial questions of law which had been pointed out, the second appeal to be allowed.