IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.565 OF 1999 Between: Pathan Rasool Khan (Died) Pathan Jamal Khan and three others. - - - Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Appellants. AND Permidi Poonnappa Reddy and two others. - - - Defendants/ Appellants/ Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL NO.565 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The suit for injunction, which was decreed by the trial court, was reversed by the lower appellate Court under the impugned judgment and decree. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that they are in possession of the suit site marked as ‘CDEF’ in the plaint plan as they are owners of the house property bearing Door No.27-104 marked under the plaint plan as ‘ABCD’ appurtenant to this house. The open land of 14 yards and 10 yards as shown in the plan is marked as ‘CDEF’ was claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs and interference by the defendants was alleged. Accordingly plaintiffs instituted the said suit O.S. 62 of 1987 before the district Munsif, Venkatagiri. The defendants who are said to be office bearers of a temple trust resisted the suit by claiming the suit schedule extent is a land belonging to the temple and contested the claim of the plaintiff for injunction. While the trial Court decreed the suit, the appellate Court by its impugned judgment reversed the same. The learned counsel for the appellants has criticized the findings of the lower appellate Court under the impugned judgment by contending that the suit being one for injunction the appellate Court ought to have kept the only aspect of possession of the plaintiff as on the date of the suit as the question for consideration, whereas it has gone into the question of title as set up by the defendant and has erroneously reversed the judgment of the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned judgment by contending that the temple site is sought to be encroached by the plaintiff by filing the suit on the basis of the decree of the trial Court. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : As to whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is in conformity with law when there are no points for determination framed while disposing of the appeal? 4. The question therefore is whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code? 5. I have just now disposed of Second Appeal 438 of 1999 wherein same identical question arose for consideration. Incidentally, in the appeal judgment in that case and in the present case is by the same presiding officer and the point for consideration framed in this appeal in paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court is identical to the point for consideration as was framed in the appeal judgment in S.A.438 of 1999 referred to above. I have already held in the earlier judgment that framing of such point for consideration is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the said finding equally applies to this case as well. Therefore, without going into any other question on merits, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court for the reasons already mentioned in detail in S.A.438 of 1999. 6. The appeal therefore is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court and A.S.24 of 1995 shall stand remitted for fresh consideration to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The said Court shall hear both the parties of all the questions of fact and law and shall decide the Appeal expeditiously and in any case before 31st December, 2010. Office is directed to send back the record of the lower appellate Court within a period of two weeks from today. 7. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. The status-quo existing in this Appeal as on today shall therefore operate till 31-12-2010. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. September, 13, 2010. DSH