PEDDAMALAM SIDDAMMA Vs. M VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19. 9. 1997 this Court made the following Order in the second appeal:

(2.) THE substantial questions of law, on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitted, as specified above, are as hereunder:

(3.) SRI Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel representing appellants had taken his Court through the findings recorded by he Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would maintain that the suit claiming the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession itself is not maintainable since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. The earned Counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would maintain hat though common judgment was delivered by the learned District Munsif, Alampur, in o. S. No. 25/94 and O. S. No. 62/94, since the lature of reliefs prayed for being different md the issues tried and decided being different, though one appeal alone had been preferred - A. S. No. 18/96 on the file of subordinate Judge, Gadwal, as against the decree and Judgment made in O. S. No. 25/ 94, the findings recorded in the other suit would not operate as res judicata and perfectly the present second appeal is maintainable as against the said Decree and judgment made in AS No. 18/96. The counsel also incidentally made certain submissions relating to certain of the findings recorded in W. P. No. 1322/99 and would maintain that the same had been suspended in W. A. M. P. No. 2826/2004 in w. A. No. 153 8/2004 and in the light of the same and also in the light of the fact that the specific question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of a Civil Court had not been decided, it may be just and proper to make an order of remand.