INJUNCTION — Mandatory injunction without declaration — Maintainability. Suit for mandatory injunction to remove obstructions on line of contact to public road maintainable even without seeking declaration, in circumstances where right of access is evident and established. Followed: Satyaboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangesetti Tirupathamma, 1988 (2) APLJ 469. [p.14–15, 19]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Friday, the 26th day of September, 2025
Before: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya

SECOND APPEAL No. 688 of 2025

APHC01050894-2025

Between:

Kanchi Satyanarayana @ Peda Bulliyya … Appellant
Vs.
Tatipaka Ramachandra Murthy Devasthanam & Others … Respondents

HEADNOTES 

A. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S.100 — SECOND APPEAL — Scope — Concurrent findings of fact — No substantial question of law.

Where the Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found (i) plaintiff-temple’s locus standi, (ii) its right of access to road through line of contact X-X1-Y, and (iii) encroachments by defendants on road-margin, no substantial question of law arises. Held, second appeal dismissed.
[p.18–22]

B. INJUNCTION — Mandatory injunction without declaration — Maintainability.

Suit for mandatory injunction to remove obstructions on line of contact to public road maintainable even without seeking declaration, in circumstances where right of access is evident and established.
Followed: Satyaboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangesetti Tirupathamma, 1988 (2) APLJ 469.
[p.14–15, 19]

C. PROPERTY LAW — Road-margin / Government poramboke — Patta cannot be issued — Encroachment by private parties.

Government cannot issue patta in respect of road margin. Encroachments D1–D2–D3 proved by defendants’ admissions.
Patta (Ex.B1) without pleading — useless in law. Ex.B2 not issued by proper authority.
[p.8–10]

D. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 — Pleadings and proof — Evidence without pleadings — Irrelevant.

Trial Court rightly rejected Ex.B1 (patta) as it was not pleaded; evidence without pleadings cannot be relied upon.
[p.10, 20]

E. HINDU TEMPLES — Locus standi of person managing temple.

Gift deed Ex.A1 and Exs.A4–A7 establish plaintiff’s manager’s authority. PW1, grandson of donor, managing the temple, has locus standi.
[p.8, 15, 18]

F. CIVIL PROCEDURE — Time to vacate — Grant of reasonable time.

Six months time granted for vacating suit schedule property.
[p.23]

CASE FACTS 

The respondents/plaintiff filed O.S. No.71/2016 seeking:

1. Mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove obstructions to line of contact X1–Y of plaint plan to road on north.

2. Permanent injunction restraining interference with line of contact X–X1.

Plaintiff’s case:
• Suit land Ac.1-00 (A1 portion) gifted to temple under Gift Deed dt.25-05-1982 by Katikireddy Sriramulu.
• PW1 (grandson of donor) manages temple.
• 37-ft gravel road on North; beyond that a field channel.
• Line of contact X–X1–Y (130 ft).
• Defendants encroached road margin (D1–D3 portions), raised houses, interfering with access.

Defendants’ case:
• Denied plaintiff’s locus.
• Claimed forefathers encroached and lived in road margin from time immemorial.
• D3 obtained possession certificate Ac.0-02 in R.S.No.14/2B (22-01-2007).
• D1 converted huts, built RCC house, paying taxes.
• Claimed prescriptive title and adverse possession.
• Asserted plaintiff cannot seek mandatory injunction without declaration.

Trial Court:
• Issues framed on mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and relief.
• PWs 1–2 and Ex.A1–A8 relied upon.
• DWs 1–2 and Exs.B1–B4 for defendants.
• Held PW1 has locus; admitted encroachments; Ex.B1 (patta) not pleaded; Ex.B2 not by proper authority; decreed suit; directed removal of obstructions within 6 months; granted permanent injunction.

First Appeal (A.S. No.3/2023):
• Appellants argued lack of locus, maintainability, improper appreciation of Ex.B1–B4.
• Appellate Court framed 5 points—locus, maintainability, entitlement to injunctions, sustainability.
• Relied on Satyaboyina Someswara Rao; distinguished K. Sathyamoorthy v R. Mohanudu (2024 (1) ALT 422).
• Confirmed Trial Court decree.

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT (Structured from Judgment)

1. No substantial question of law arises (S.100 CPC).

The concurrent findings on:

• PW1’s locus
• Plaintiff’s right of access
• Encroachments by defendants
• Rejection of Ex.B1–B2 for legal reasons

are findings of fact.

2. Locus standi of PW1 upheld.

Ex.A1 (Gift Deed recitals) and Exs.A4–A7 clearly prove PW1 manages temple.
Both Courts below gave categorical findings. No question of law arises.

3. Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable without declaration.

Based on Satyaboyina Someswara Rao and other authorities, suit for mandatory and permanent injunction without declaration is maintainable where line of contact and right of access are established.

4. Patta / possession certificates invalid.

• Ex.B1 not pleaded → cannot be relied upon.
• Ex.B2 not issued by competent authority → no legal efficacy.
• Government cannot issue patta for road margin.

5. No grounds to interfere with concurrent findings.

Findings supported by evidence, admissions, legal authority.

FINAL JUDGMENT (Verbatim-Style Structured)

1. No substantial questions of law arise for adjudication.

2. Second Appeal dismissed.

3. Six months’ time granted to appellants/defendants to vacate suit schedule property.

4. Miscellaneous applications dismissed.

5. No costs.

— NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
Date: 26-09-2025