SOWRAM SWAMY Vs. NADUNOORI RADHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2004 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.630 of 2001.

(2.) Appellant herein filed O.S.No.630 of 2001 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against respondents for perpetual injunction with respect to the land admeasuring 110.00 sq.yards covered by Survey No.728 situated at Rangampet, Warangal. The trial Court on considering the evidence, having recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff instead of arraying the true owner as party defendant, had chosen to array the Executive Officer in his personal capacity as party defendant No.2 and that the owner being Hanuman Temple, Rangampet, Warangal, no injunction can be granted against the true owner, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 19.02.2004. Against the said judgment, the appellant/plaintiff filed A.S.No.37 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The lower appellate Court after taking into consideration the additional evidence, Ex.A.19 - Certified Copy of deposition of P.W.1 in O.S.No.795 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and Ex.A.20 - Certified Copy of judgment in O.S.No.795 of 1999, having recorded a finding that dismissal of O.S.No.795 of 1999 filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant has no bearing on the suit filed by him, as, he is claiming title only through respondent No.1, whose suit, being O.S.No.795 of 1999, was dismissed on the ground that she failed to establish her title over the schedule property, as such, the question of acquiring better title by the appellant does not arise, and that in a suit for injunction, unless the plaintiff is able to establish the title, the Court is not entitled to grant injunction, dismissed the Appeal Suit vide judgment dated 20.03.2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in O.S.No.795 of 1999, respondent No.1 herein, who sought declaration of title and recovery of possession, clearly admitted the possession of the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the subject property, which fact could not have been ignored by the lower appellate Court.