The High Court · 2025

:SRl SRILEKHA POOJARI Counsel for the Respondents : SRI CH. RAVINDER The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.l5 of 2024 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 09.11.2023, passed by the Principal t)istrict Judge, Jogulamba, in A.S.No.28 of 2019, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, in O.S.No.87 of 2014 was confirmed. 2- The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.87 of 2014, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of 2 ttz guntas of land in Sy.No.772l3/paiki (hereafter referred to as 'schedule property'). In the plaint it is averred that plaintifls wife purchased the schedule property through registered sale deed bearing document No.l02211984 from one Sri Namilikanti Nagappa. Later, the vendor got approved the plots through D.T.C.P into two bits 2 LNA, J SA.N1.15 of2025 i.e. 30 x 40 each with specific boundaries, which plaintiff got ratified vide registered document bearing No. 3561 of 2008 dated 07.07.2008 on the basis of agreement of sale dated 21.01.1987.It was further averred that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of two bits as absolute owner. Later, major part of plot said to have been purchased by the respondents, was affected for formation of roads. The respondents kept quite then and now taking advantage of plaintifls innocence picked up quarrel with him in order to grab his plot. Therefore, plaintiff approached the Hon'ble Lok Adalat and the Hon'ble Lok Adalat advised both the parties to approach Court of law. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and regularized the plot vide orders GII-FiS138/2164/2013 dated

20.05 .2013 and obtained permission for construction and was ready to construct house, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is no way concerned with the schedule property. Neither the plaintiff nor his wife is owner or possessor of schedule property; that the averment that plaintifls wife Y 3 I,NA,.I S1.t"o.l i ol )025 Shankaramma purchased the schedule propefty and ratified the same virle registered document bearing No. 3561 of 2008 is talse and furlher agreement of sale are not binding on the def'endants; that they are absolute owuers and possessors of schedule properly having purchased the sarne on the name of defendant No.l through registered document bearing No. 1950 of 1984 dated l7.l1.1984 and plaintillis not in possession of suit property and that the proceedings ol Municipality are created for the purpose of suit and the same is bamed by limitation; that originally, Nemilikanti Nagappa is pattedar and possessor of suit property and defendants purchased some poftions of land tiorn him three times i.e., 133 Sq.yards, vide registered saie deed bearing No. t950 of 1984, dated 11 .11.1984, 33.3 Sq.yards, vide registered sale decd bearing No. 1957 of 1984, dated 17.1 1.1984, and t33 Sq.yards, vide registered sale deed bearing No. 735 of 1985 on

22.04.1985 rcspectively. It is further averred that after the purchase, defendants are in possession of the schedule propefty and plaintiff intentionally rnentioned the boundaries of the schedule propefty in the suit fbr which he is not entitled and the suit is liable to be dismissed I LNA, J SA.No.l5 oJ2025

5. On the basis of the above pleadings olboth the parties, the trial Courl framed the following issues for trial:- "(l ) Wtether the plainlilf is absolutc oirner and possessor lo be declare as title holder o.[ lhe suit schedule plot No. 9 to an extent o.f I I l.l0 Sq.yards in Sy No. 772/3? (2) Whether the plaintilJ-is entilled for perpetual itlunction against the defendants as prayedJbr? (3) Whether the defendant No.l hos purchased the suit schedule property from original owner one Nemalikanti Nagappa in three times and got registered in her name through registered sale deeds doctunent No. 1950/1984, 1957/1984 and 73 5/1985 respectively? (4) To what relieJ? "

6. During the course of Trial, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.Al to ,49 were marked. On behatf of the defendants, DW. l was examined and Ex.Bl to Ex.B5 were marked.

1. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions ofboth the parlies, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vlde judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019

8. The trial Court while disrnissing the suit, categorically obser-ved as hereunder:- .l 5 LNA, J SA.No.l5 of)025 ' ln the instant case, tlrc plaintiff contending thrtt his wi/'e got agrccmcnt under Ex.A2 and he got ratit'ication deccl ttnder Er.Ai. As per Sec. 18 of Transfer of Properly Act tlmt v'hrs i.s prior in rintc is stronger in law. Sec. 48 Priorit;; of rights c,eotcl b): lrunsfer, where a person purports lo cteut? b.v translbr ur di/fb.rent times rights in or over tlrc same immoveoble property, and sttch rights cannot all e.rist or he exet (ise(l to their full extent together, eacll later crealed righl shall, in thc absence of u special contract or rcservotiotl binding rhe eorlier tansferees be subject to tlrc rights pret'ious\, ct r:ated. The priorily is determined by thc dates of lhe tleetls and nol by the date of registration- Wten Nenilikonti. Naguppa sold the property to defendant No.I D. Sayaranmrr unrler Ex.B I , he has no right to erecule lhe asreentent in favcttu' o.f the wife of plaintiff. When the properly alrcacll' sold to the deJbndant No. I , Nemiliknati Naguppa hus no right to (xecute agreement under Ex.A2 to lhe v'i/e o./' plairilill. "

8. I . The trial Courl has further observed as hereunder:- "24. The ntrrtation proceedings in favour of plainti/f doe.s fiot creotc or confer any title or right over the properlies. There;fbre, the plaintiff failed to prove his tille oNer the sttit schedule property. In Er.A5 at page No.), 4't' condition slrcv's the regulation of lay out/plot cloes nol confer ot'nersltip on the applicant or after the ownership of the land. In Ex.A7 at condition No. I it is mentionecl 6 LNA, J SA.No.l 5 oJ )025 that permission accorded does not confer any ownership rights. Therefore, the contention of the colmsel for plaintiff that plaintiff got ntutated the plot in the Municipaliqt record does not create any right or title."

9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the ptaintiffs preferred appeal vide A.S.No.28 of 2019 and the first Appellate Court, being thc final fact-finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and rnaterial available on record and dismissed the Appeat, vide its .jutlgment dated 03.09.2019, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- "...[t is very pertinent to note that Er.A3 rectdication deed was in.favour of the plaintiff but not in Javour oJ w(b oJ'the plaintdJ Sntt.Musti Shankaramma- The plainti/f did nol choose to examine the persons who executed Ex.A3 rectiJication deed to unravel as to the availability of thc property purchased uncler Ex.Al on the spot even after formation ol 3 3 ' leel road.

29. Having, lost some area purchased ttnder Ex.Al sale deed, rlrc plaintiLf further went ahead in getting Ex.A2 and A3 documents from his vendor Nemalikanti Nagappa and legal representative whiclt does not conre))s any tille over the 7 I,NA. J SA.No l5 oJ 2025 disputetl propet'n. The plctintilJ'is trying to ride two horses at a time u,hiclt is not at all possible. In case, the plainti-f/ has lost some properh) due to fbrmation oJ road, then the recourse left to the plainrill to go lor compensation from his vendor or to compensotc rendor-s rernaininpi property by way of gi/i or any other docunLcnt. Er.A2 ond A3 documents only goes lo show that even a./ier .fbrmation oJ road still the plainti/f lnlds the same pt opert.t, pLtrchased under Ex.A I sale deed. But, this assertiott c:unnot be occepted.for the reason that Pll/2 who is the . testor o/ *.A I to A3 has clandestinely admi ed that a road has bt,en .lbt med i the property purchased under Ex A l Thus, Ex.A2 and Ai cloes nol confers any further title to the plaintil/'s nifb. So, therefbre, the said documents have to be kept outskle the pun iew oJ'its consideration"

10.1. I-he first Appeltate Court further observed as hereunder:- " 32. The plairtti/f is rrying to take advanlage of the weakness of lhe defendants evidence in mttking interpolation of pbl No.9 in Ex.B I sale tleecl. The suit.filed by the plaintiff is for declaration of title and so lh.ereJore, the burden lies on him. In this regard, it is v,orthwltile to menlion a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Courl oJ. lrrlio itt t;elveen Union of Indiu antl otlters vs. Vasavi Co-operotive Socieit Limited and others wlrcrein iI was observed as under: "lt is tritc lott' tlrut, in tt sttit Jbr eleclaration oJ title, burden alu,a_vs lies on tlrc plaintiff to make out and estubli.\h a clear case .t'br granting such a 8 LNA, J sA No ts of2025 declaration and the weakness, if an.y, in the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintilf. " ....tlte et'idence qf PW2 clinchingly goes to show that 33'Jeet rortd has been lormed in the property purchased utder Ex.Al. Tlrcn it can be said the plaintfJ did not approach tlte court with clcan hands and nying to suppress material facts of the property in disptttc has projected by DWI and DW2_ Therefore, the pluintif/' cannot take any advantage of interpolation oJ ptol No.9 in E.r.B I sale deed. Without any base the pktintilJ'has assigned thc suit schedule property by giving plot No.9. Though, the plaintiff got confirmation of rhe property /rom his verulor uncler Ex.A2 antl rectification under Ex.A3 still failed to establish tlxat the suit sclrcdule property denotes plot No.9 which he has pu'clrusetl wtder Ex.A I . Ulna Ex.A2 and A3 subsequent tloctunents also doe.s not cle)totes plot No.9. Thus, il can be c'ortclutled that lhe plaintilffailed to establish clear title ot,er the .sttit sc'hedLtle property. " I t. Heard Sri Sritekha Pujari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents. perused the entirc material available on record.

12. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that the triat Court as well as thc first appellate Courl without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, have come to 9 L,^'lA, J SA.No.l5 of2025 erroneous conclusion and dismissed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the oral and docut.nentary evidence placed on record by plaintiff particularly Exs.Al to A.9 and oral deposition of PW.l, PW.2 and CW.l, by which, the appellant proved his title over schedule property. Therefore, viewed from any angle, impugned order is liable to be set aside, hence, prayed to allow the second appeal.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court concurrently held that suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, therefore, burden lies on the plaintiff to substantiate his case, which plaintiff failed to prove. Both the Courts observed that mere mutation proceedings in favour of plaintiff name in property register of municipality does not create or confer any title in favour of plaintiff. The First appellate Court referred to and relicd upon the judgmcnt of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between Union o,f India and others vs. Vasavi Co-operative Society Limiled and olhers, wherein in it held that in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to establish his l0 I,NA, J SA.No.l5 of)025 case for declaration and mere weakness, if any, on the part of the defendants does not mean that plaintiff is entitled for relief.

14. In considcred view of this Court, the leamed counsel for appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualifu as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Cour! which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

16. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Coun sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration. r(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 LNA, J SA.No.l5 of2025

17. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court I'inds no ground or reason warranting interlerence with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, thc grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.

18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and thc same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Court of the Principal District Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal District.

2. fhe Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal' 3. One CC to SRI SRILEKHA POOJARI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI CH. RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies 1,P Pcsdigh HIGH COURT DATED:1 510412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.15 ot 2024 I t 2t aus M t $t' )>z a) Or o PAtcrrEo { t DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION