HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.382 OF 2010 Dt.25.6.2010 Between: G.Thayaramma ..Appellant And V.Ramaswamy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.382 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Appellant herein is the plaintiff. She filed the suit in O.S.No.139 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking relief of permanent injunction against D-2 restraining from alienating plaint ‘B’ schedule shop to the 1st defendant. It is not in dispute that ‘B’ schedule shop No.23 situated at Tirumala Hills belongs to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (T.T.D). It is stated that ‘B’ schedule shop was leased out in favour of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant in turn sold his rights in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the 1st defendant having alienating his right under Ex.P-20, dated 4.5.1983, and having applied for allotment of another shop started interfering with her possession. Therefore, the suit was filed against the vendor also. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 6.1.2003 dismissed the suit on the ground that D-1 has no transferable right in respect of the licence granted by the T.T.D and therefore the plaintiff cannot get any right over the said property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the lower appellate court by judgment and decree dated 12.3.2010 dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff-appellant is only a licensee of the shop and the licensee has no right to transfer or alienate the said licence in favour of the plaintiff when indisputably T.T.D is the owner of the said property and the deed obtained by the plaintiff under Ex.A-2 cannot give rise any right over A or B schedule property and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction against the real owner. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the appellant is without any right accrued in her favour and the T.T.D never permitted the licensee/ D-1 for alienation of his right in favour of the plaintiff and therefore it cannot be said that the plaintiff has accrued any right whatsoever under Ex. A-20. Ex.A- 20 is an agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is not binding on T.T.D. The plaintiff basing on Ex.A-20 cannot claim right over A schedule property and basing on the said alleged right over A schedule shop the plaintiff cannot seek for an injunction against T.T.D not to allot B schedule shop either to the first defendant or to anybody except to the plaintiff. I do not see any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 25.6.2010 kpr