MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION — Suit maintainability without declaration — line of access/right of way — temple’s right to contact line — encroachment on road margins — injunction confirmed. Courts below applied precedent Satyaboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangesetti Tirupathamma — held temple has right of access along line of contact X-X1-Y — encroachments evidenced from defence admissions — mandatory and permanent injunction decreed — upheld in First Appeal and confirmed in Second Appeal. (Paras 8–10, 14, 19).

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — concurrent findings on facts — locus standi, injunction and evidentiary appreciation — no substantial question of law — dismissal.
Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court on plaintiff’s locus, maintainability of mandatory injunction without declaratory relief, and rejection of Exs. B1 to B4 — held to be factual appreciation based on settled legal principles — High Court held no substantial question of law arose — Second Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 18–22).

MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION — Suit maintainability without declaration — line of access/right of way — temple’s right to contact line — encroachment on road margins — injunction confirmed.
Courts below applied precedent Satyaboyina Someswara Rao v. Sangesetti Tirupathamma — held temple has right of access along line of contact X-X1-Y — encroachments evidenced from defence admissions — mandatory and permanent injunction decreed — upheld in First Appeal and confirmed in Second Appeal.
(Paras 8–10, 14, 19).

LOCUS STANDI — temple representation — gift deed interpretation — evidence — concurrent finding.
Locus of PW1 upheld on basis of recitals of Gift Deed (Ex.A1) and corroborating documents Exs. A4–A6 — held purely factual — no question of law arises.
(Paras 8, 15, 18).

EVIDENCE — absence of pleadings — inadmissibility — patta/possession certificates not issued by competent authority.
Ex.B1 ignored as no pleading; Ex.B2 held invalid as not issued by competent authority — lower courts held such evidence ineffective — High Court affirmed.
(Paras 10, 20–21).

PARA-WISE SYNOPSIS / ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

Paras 1–3: Origin of dispute; claim of right of access

• Temple filed suit seeking mandatory injunction for removal of structures blocking its access to northern road and permanent injunction.

• Trial Court recorded facts of gift deed, road existence, line of contact, and alleged encroachments (D1, D2, D3 portions).

Paras 4–6: Defence and issue framing

• Defendants pleaded hereditary occupation, possession certificates, and title by long possession.

• Trial Court framed three issues on mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and relief.

Paras 7–8: Evidence and Trial Court findings

• Trial Court accepted PW1’s locus based on Ex.A1 and DW admissions.

• Trial Court held encroachments proven and applied precedent Satyaboyina Someswara Rao.

Paras 9–10: Treatment of defendants’ documents

• Ex.B1 rejected for want of pleading.

• Ex.B2 rejected for being issued by improper authority.

• Trial Court decreed suit, ordered demolition within six months.

Paras 11–15: Appeal and findings

• Appellants challenged locus, remedy, and evidentiary findings.

• First Appellate Court framed five points for consideration.

• It upheld Trial Court findings:

  • maintainability of injunction without declaratory relief,

  • existence of access right,

  • locus of PW1 through Exs.A4–A6.

Paras 16–18: High Court’s Section 100 scrutiny

• High Court assessed rival submissions.

• Held: no substantial question of law arises on locus; both courts concurrently held PW1 competent.

Paras 19–21: Suit maintainability and evidentiary findings upheld

• Suit for mandatory injunction without declaration valid per legal precedents.

• Ex.B1 discarded for want of pleading; Ex.B2 invalid; concurrent findings binding.

Para 22–24: Result

• Second Appeal dismissed on ground of absence of substantial question of law.

• Six months’ time granted to vacate; miscellaneous matters closed; no costs.

CENTRIC LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Court treated this as a classic Section 100 CPC case:

• Two courts concurrently resolved factual issues regarding access, encroachment, and locus.

• Where findings stem from evidence evaluation and settled principles (pleadings rule, invalidity of unauthoritative pattas, rights over contact line), High Court reiterated that Section 100 forbids re-appraisal.

The key holding is jurisdictional restraint:

• Even if appellants dispute findings, they do not crystallise into substantial questions of law.

• Hence, dismissal is procedural — not an affirmation of factual truth, but affirmation of finality doctrine under Section 100 CPC.