- (1.)THE unsuccessful defendants 2 to 4 had preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the decree and judgment dated 21.08.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Repalle passed in AS.No.20 of 2010 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the decree and judgment of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle passed in OS.No.1 of 2006 filed by the sole plaintiff (since died) for a perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.3.16 1/2 cents of dry land at Dindi more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 ( 'the defendants 2 to 4', for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs 2 to 5, who are brought on record during the pendency of the suit on the death of the deceased sole plaintiff. Be it also noted that the defendants 2 to 4 got themselves impleaded in the suit as per orders in IA.No.777 of 2006 dated 07.08.2006 and the said defendants are only prosecuting this second appeal. I have perused the material record.
(3.)BE it noted that in the grounds of appeal, the following substantial questions of law are formulated and it is contended that the said substantial questions of law are involved.
1. Whether the issue/point for consideration as settled by the first appellate Court can be sustained since the same issues as before the trial Court or to be the issues?

2. In a suit for permanent injunction the possession weights as against title, whether the trial Court and appellate Court have to see the possession established as on the date of the filing of the suit or not?

3. When admits there is lease for a period of thirty years in favour of one Sonti Venkateswarlu and Ex. A1 gift deed is dated 24.07.2004, exhibit A2 -pass book is dated 09.11.2004 and the last adangal exhibit A7 and A8 relate to 1987, whether the suit filed as on 05.01.2006, can be taken as possession as on date of filing of suit?

[Reproduced verbatim]
However, at the time of hearing at the stage of admission, the learned counsel for the appellants having fairly submitted that the substantial questions that are initially mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are not involved had contended that the following substantial questions, which are mentioned in the memo dated 20.11.2014 as additional substantial questions, are involved in this appeal.
1. When plaintiffs and defendants are governed by Hanafi law of intestate succession the devolution of shares being automatic, all of them become co -owners and thus whether a suit for mere injunction is maintainable against co -owners?

2. Whether a plaintiff can succeed for grant of permanent injunction without proving possession as on the date of filing of the suit?

3. Whether the properties in the Schedule is covered out of two or more survey numbers of large extents, can the plaint schedule shown to be situated within the same boundaries?

4. Where the Donor under examined as PW2, under whom the plaintiff is claiming, admits that she doesn 't know the contents of the alleged A1 -gift deed, can the document be held to be proved?

5. When PW2 donor under whom plaintiff is claiming possession and title admits to lease of the entire land by herself and the father of defendants 2 to 4 to one Sonti Venkateswarlu and another abut 30 years back, can the suit by plaintiff for permanent injunction be maintainable without impleading the said Sonti Venkateswarlu and another to the parties to the suit?

[Reproduced verbatim]
According to the submissions of the learned counsel, the parties are governed by Hannifi law of intestate succession and that the defendants 2 to 4 and the plaintiffs are co-owners of all the properties of the joint family and that, therefore, no perpetual injunction can be granted in favour of one co-owner against the other co-owners and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their lawful and exclusive possession as on the date of the suit, which is a material feature in a suit for perpetual injunction and that, therefore, the said additional substantial questions are involved in this second appeal.