CHAGANTI RAGHAVAMMA Vs. DOWLURI KANTHA MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is coming up for admission to-day. Heard sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing the appellant.

(2.) SRI P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the C. M. S. A as such is maintainable as against the decree and judgment made in A. S. No. 224 of 2008 on the file of the iii Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 5-1-2009, since the said appeal was preferred as against the order, dated 9-9-2008, made in E. A. No. 318 of 2007 in E. P. No. 229 of 1996 in O. S. No. 10 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, kakinada. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Code', and further had drawn attention of this Court to Section 282 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporations Act, 1955 and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well. The counsel also would maintain that the nomenclature which would be given whether it is called as C. M. S. A or S. A. , would not seriously alter the situation and hence the present C. M. S. A. to be admitted and appropriate interim orders to be passed. The learned counsel also pointed out to the elaborate grounds raised in the C. M. S. A, and further placed reliance on certain decisions also to substantiate his submissions. Heard the counsel.

(3.) THE present C. M. S. A is preferred as against the decree and judgment made in a. S. No. 224 of 2008 on the file of the III additional District Judge, Kakinada. The said appeal in fact was preferred as against the order made by the learned II Additional Senior civil Judge, Kakinada in E. A. No. 318 of 2007 in E. P. No. 229 of 1996 in O. S. No. 10 of 1991 whereunder the appellant as petitioner claimed the E. P. schedule property as owner thereof and further for a direction that the respondents should not interfere with her right, title or possession of the petition schedule property. The learned II Additional senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after recording evidence of P. W. 1 and also marking Exs. A-1 to A-5 recorded certain findings and ultimately dismissed the E. A. aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal A. S. No. 224 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District judge, Kakinada and the appellate court after formulating the point for consideration at para 10, recorded reasons commencing from paras 11 to 17 and ultimately dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. M. S. A had been preferred: