Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 667 (AP)

Uchappa v. Sonappa

2003-05-01

M.NARAYANA REDDY

body2003
( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to Law, based on the legal material placed by both the parties, on Record, arises out of a Second Appeal, filed by the appellants, against R. 1 and R. 2, under Section 100, C. P. C. questioning the, validity and legality of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT and Decree, both, dated 18-8-1994, of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, made in A. S. No. 124/87, of its file, setting aside, in part, the Judgment and Decree both, dated 2-11-1987, of the Court of the District Munsif (since re-designated as Junior Civil Judge), Kuppam, made in O. S. No. 1/81, of its file, and, consequently, adjudicating upon that suit, in part, as set forth in para 11 infra. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the Record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for R. 1 and R. 2. ( 5 ) APPELLANTS 1 to 13 in this Second Appeal correspond, respectively, to R. 1 to R. 13 in the said A. S. No. 124/87, of the said First Appellate court, and D. 1 to D. 13 in that O. S. No. 1/81, of the file of the said Trial Court. R. 1 and R. 2 in this Second Appeal correspond, respectively, to appellants 1 and 2 in the said First Appeal and plaintiffs 1 and 2 in that suit. Appellants 3 to 29 in that First Appeal correspond, respectively, to plaintiffs 3 to 29 in that suit. They are not impleaded as respondents in this Second Appeal, or in any other capacity, stating, that, they are not necessary parties to the Second Appeal. ( 6 ) THE parties are, here-in-after, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said Trial Court, in that suit, unless, otherwise, so specified. ( 7 ) THE subject matter of the said suit, as also, the First Appeal, as well as, the Second Appeal, as described in the schedule of the plaint, are 29 Tamarind Trees, situate in Sy. Nos. 59/4-A to 59/4-D of Peddapathikumta village of Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ( 7 ) THE subject matter of the said suit, as also, the First Appeal, as well as, the Second Appeal, as described in the schedule of the plaint, are 29 Tamarind Trees, situate in Sy. Nos. 59/4-A to 59/4-D of Peddapathikumta village of Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ( 8 ) IN respects thereof, the said 29 plaintiffs filed the said O. S. No. 1/81, in the said Trial Court, against D. 1 to D. 13 therein, for the main reliefs, set forth, hereunder:- a) For perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants and their men and others, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled Tamarind Trees, by the plaintiffs, etc. : and b) For costs of the case. ( 9 ) THE defendants opposed the suit claims, and the foregoing reliefs, and, urged, that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the perpetual injunction, as claimed, etc. , and that, the suit is not maintainable, etc. , and that, hence, the suit has to be dismissed, with costs to them, etc. ( 10 ) THE said Trial Court framed, as many, as, 10 issues in that suit, for trial but it, inter alia, as to declaration of title, the enforceability of the suit agreement, ownership of the disputed Tamarind Trees, etc. , etc. , and, later, tried the same, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, and D. Ws. 1 and 2, and, exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. A. 1 and A. 2, and Exs. B. 1 to B. 47, and Exs. X. 1 and X. 2 and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its judgment, dated 2-11-87, set forth in para 2, supra as under:- a) Dismissing the suit, in to; and b) Directing the parties thereto, to bear their own costs incurred therein. ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, questing the, validity and legality, thereof, the plaintiffs filed the said A. S. No. 124/87, in the said First Appellate Court, which, enquired there-into, in the process whereof, it received the additional documentary evidence, by way of Exs. ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, questing the, validity and legality, thereof, the plaintiffs filed the said A. S. No. 124/87, in the said First Appellate Court, which, enquired there-into, in the process whereof, it received the additional documentary evidence, by way of Exs. X. 3 and X. 4, which are respectively, proceedings of the Joint Collector, Chittor, and stay Orders of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, and enquired that First Appeal, and, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its now impugned Judgment and Decree, both, dated 18-8-1994, set forth in para 2, supra, as under:- i. Setting aside, in toto, of the impugned Judgment and Decree, of the Trial Court, covered thereby, and set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph; ii. Consequently, adjudicating upon the said O. S. No. 1/81, of the file of the said Trial Court, as under:- a) Granting perpetual injunction, as claimed in the suit, and set forth in sub-para (a) of para 8 supra; b) Clarifying, that, the defendants are also entitled to get their respective shares in the usufruct of the disputed Tamarind Trees, after harvesting them, as per the terms of the said harvesting them, as per the terms of the said Ex. A-1 Agreement, and c) Directing the defendants, to pay to the plaintiffs, the costs of the suit; and iii. Directing the defendant-respondents in that First Appeal, to pay, to the plaintiffs-appellants therein, the costs of that First Appeal. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, questing the, validity and legality, thereof, the defendants filed the present Second Appeal, as set forth in para 1 and 2, supra. ( 13 ) AFTER perusing the now impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, vis--vis, the oral and documentary evidence placed, on Record, of the Trial Court, as well as, the additional documentary evidence placed, on Record, of the First Appellate Court, as set forth in para 11, supra, vis--vis, the Grounds of Appeal, questioning the same, vis--vis, the legal position, prevailing vis--vis, the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties, I am of the considered opinion, that, no substantial question of Law arises, to be decided in this Second Appeal, warranting interference by the High Court, either under Section 100, or 103, both, of C. P. C. ( 14 ) AFTER considering the contents of Ex. A. 1, vis--vis, the arguments of the learned Counsel, I am not inclined to find, that, the contents thereof are opposed to public policy, and hence, not enforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act. ( 15 ) AS set forth in sub-para (a) of para 8, supra, the suit is filed, for the primary relief of bare perpetual injunction only, together with the ancillary relief of costs, set forth in sub-para (b) of that para, while in respect of enjoyment of Tamarind Trees, descried, in detail, in the plaint schedule, set forth in para 7, supra. ( 16 ) WHILE so, the said Trial Court framed so many, as, nine substantial issues, inter alia, as to, as to whether the suit agreement cannot be enforced, and in whom the ownership of the Tamarind Trees vested, etc. , etc. , and, whether, the suit agreement (Ex. A. 1) is cancelled, etc. , and, finally, adjudicated upon, dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction, as set forth in para 10, supra. ( 17 ) LATER, the First Appellate Court in the said First Appeal reversed the same, decreeing the suit, as claimed, etc. ( 18 ) AS set forth in sub-para (111) of para 11, supra, the First Appellate Court also granted equitable relief, to the effect, that, the defendants are also entitled for their respective shares in pursuance of that Ex. A. 1-Agreement. ( 19 ) EVEN otherwise, even considering the material, as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion, that, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court doesnt suffer from any inherent illegality, or, infirmity, or, perversity, or, abnormality, or, illegal appreciation of the material, by that Court, or, in interpretation of any statutory provision, or, document, and, thereby, ipso facto, resulting in grave miscarriage of substantial justice, so as to warrant the High Court, to interfere therewith, as a special, or, exceptional, or, extraordinary, case, either under sections 100, or, 103, both, of C. P. C. ( 20 ) HENCE, the Second Appeal is devoid of all, factual and legal, merits, and, hence, it is liable to be dismissed, in toto, as such, as is being done, hereunder. ( 21 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Second Appeal, dismissing the same, in toto, but, without costs to any of the parties thereto.