IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.327 OF 2010 Between: Chundu Krupa @ Rupa ..... APPELLANT AND Bezewada Ahroom Babu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.327 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the sister of the 1st respondent. Both of them are the children of late China Adavaiah. The said Adavaiah owned an extent of Ac.0-80 cents of land in Survey No.1397 of Jammulapalem Village of Tangutur Mandal. 2. The appellant filed O.S.No.529 of 1998 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0-80 cents of the land. She pleaded that Ac.0-30 cents of the land was given to her by her father at the time of her marriage and that after his death, she came into possession of the entire land. It was further pleaded that, at the most, the 1st respondent would be entitled for an extent of Ac.0-25 cents of land, that too, after partition and that there was no basis for respondents 2 to 5 to make any claim over a piece of Ac.0-12 ½ cents of land, through the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement supporting the case of the appellant. The 2nd respondent represented by the 3rd respondent, filed a written statement opposing the suit. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent executed a deed of settlement on 11.02.1987, marked as Ex.B1, transferring Ac.0-12 ½ cents of the land in favour of 2nd respondent. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 14.11.2003 on two grounds viz., (1) that though the suit was filed through a General Power of Attorney, but the document in that respect was not filed; and (2) that the appellant did not prove her possession over the suit land and in particular, Ac.0-12 ½ cents of land, which was in possession of the 2nd respondent. The appellant filed A.S.No.205 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 01.08.2005. Hence, the Second Appeal. 5. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the only person who could have claimed the suit land was the 1st respondent and once he did not raise any dispute, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. He further submits that Ex.B1 cannot be said to be valid since it is said to have been executed by the 1st respondent before any rights have accrued to him. 6. The suit is one for perpetual injunction. The trial Court framed the following issue for its consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?” On 14.03.2000 the trial Court framed the following additional issues: “1. Whether the GPA is valid? 2. Whether the defendants are in possession of schedule land within the knowledge of plaintiff? 3. Whether the fining in O.S.73/88 hits this suit by res judicata?” 7. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were filed. On behalf of the contesting respondents, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The suit was dismissed. 8. In A.S.No.205 of 2004, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1. Whether the suit by a general power of attorney without permission of Court as required by Order III, Rule 4 C.P.C. and Rule 32 of Civil Rules Practice is maintainable? 2. If so, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property exclusively by the time of institution of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?” The appeal was dismissed. 9. Since the suit was filed for the relief of injunction simplicitor, hardly there was an occasion or scope for the trial Court to delve into the question of title. Even if, one goes by the facts pleaded by the appellant, it emerges that her father owned Ac.0-80 cents of land and gave her Ac.0-30 cents of land at the time of her marriage. The appellant could have claimed relief in respect of Ac.0-30 cents of land on proving possession, without the necessity of proof of conveyance, since her brother, the 1st respondent, did not contest the suit. 10. Assuming that the father of the appellant and the 1st respondent, died intestate, the appellant would become entitled to her share, if only partition has taken place. The 1st respondent did not dispute that he executed the deed of settlement conveying Ac.0-12 ½ cents of land in favour of the 2nd respondent. He was the only person who could have challenged the conveyance evidenced through Ex.B1. The very fact that he sailed with the appellant discloses that there was collusion between them to the detriment of the 2nd respondent. 11. These facts apart, the record discloses that though the suit was filed through a General Power of Attorney, the document as such was not filed. This was a serious flaw. In addition to that, the appellant could not have claimed the exclusive possession over the entire extent of Ac.0-80 cents of land. Further, the document filed by her to prove her possession was in relation to Ac.1-00 of land. 12. Under these circumstances, the Courts could not have granted the equitable relief of perpetual injunction. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. No question of law arises for consideration. 13. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 12, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.327 OF 2010 July 12, 2011