THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.807 of 2011 Date:07.9.2011 Between: G.K. Munaiah and another. ………...Appellants. And Seemakurthi Subbamma …… Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.807 of 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.107 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2005. The appellants are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the property covered under Ex.A2-possession certificate. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the same is evidenced by the possession certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is also the case of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been sanctioned under Indhira Niwas Yojana Pathakam for construction of Pucca House. While so, her husband died on 11.5.2002. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa recommended for issuance of building material to the plaintiff on 17.7.2002. Since the defendants made attempts to encroach the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction. 3. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement resisting the relief sought for by the plaintiff. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff obtained possession certificate by misrepresentation and the said possession certificate subsequently came to be cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is further stated in the written statement that the defendants applied for allotment of Government land for construction of a building for Salivahana Kummara Sangam, Kadapa and the Mandal Revenue Officer identified the suit schedule land for allotment. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property?; 2. Whether the R.D.O., Kadapa cancelled the possession certificate issued in the name of Narasaiah?; 3. To what relief?” 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and four documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and one document was marked as Ex.B1. 6. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and thereby proceeded to grant permanent injunction by judgment and decree dated 05.07.2006. 7. Para No.10 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “In view of the all the above observations it is proved that there is a threat from the defendants and that if the defendants and their men succeeds in dispossessing the plaintiff, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The plaintiff has therefore proved her title and possession with respect to the suit schedule property and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury if any permanent injunction is not granted and on the other hand the defendants will not be at any sufferance since they filed no documents to show that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the same was allotted to them by the revenue authorities. Hence the plaintiff is proved to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed. The defendants also failed to prove that the R.D.O., cancelled the possession certificate issued in the name of the Narasaiah. Issues 1 to 3 are therefore answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 8. The defendants filed A.S.No.107 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Kadapa assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2005. The Additional District Judge, on reappreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010. Hence the Second Appeal. 9. Para No.17 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “In answer to issue No.1, it can be concluded that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In answer to issue No.2, it shall be concluded that the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the possession certificate issued in the name of Narasaiah, but such cancellation has no effect over the fact that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property after the death of Narasaidh as on the date of filing of the present suit. In answer to issue No.3, it has to be determined that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as legitimate right to protect her possession and enjoyment until she is duly evicted under the due process of law and she is entitled to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction. Ultimately the findings of the trial Court that the suit shall be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, without costs needs no interference. Thus the appellants failed to establish substantial grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court.” 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that once Ex.A2-possession certificate is cancelled, there is no other document to substantiate the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property, in which case, the judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 12. Ex.A2 is the possession certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is not the case of the respondent/plaintiff that she has been inducted into the possession basing on Ex.A2-possession certificate. Ex.A2-possession certificate came to be cancelled under Ex.B1-proceedngs issued by the R.D.O., Kadapa. Till the plaintiff is evicted through the process of law, she deserves for grant of injunction in her favour. Indeed, the lower appellate Court clarified the judgment passed by the trial Court to the effect that injunction shall remain in force till the plaintiff is evicted through the process of law. There is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal warranting admission. 13. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:07.09.2011 mrb