Guduru Ravindra Kumar v. V. Sri Ramulu

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri C. Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I ..( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SETCOND APPEAL No.57 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is hled challenging the judgment and decree dated O3.1O.2O23 in A.S.No.3 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and where under appeal allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2015 in O.S.No.7O of 2074 on the flle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was set aside.

2. The appellant is defendant and respondent is plaintiff. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

3. Heard Sri Sridhar Lendalay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Brief facts leading to fi1ing of the present second appeal are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.70 of 2Ot4 on the hle of principal Junior Civil Judge for perpetual injunction in respect of plot bearing No.179 admeasuring 293 sq.yards in survey No.2OT situated at Nadergul Village, hereinafter referred as subject property. It is averred that plaintiff purchased subject property from its vendor vide document No. 13014 of 20 13 dated 22.07 .2013; that his vendor Farhat Shakeel had purchased the suit plot from p.Shanker through 2 a registered sale deed bearing document No.5181 LNA, J S.A.No.57 of2024 of 1988 dated

27.O4.t9a8; that P.Shanker and others had purchased the agricultural land bearing survey No.2O7 admeasuring Ac.2.22 gulrtas situated at Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Maldal, R.R.District from K.Anji Reddy & others through a registered sale deed bearing document No.3549 of l9B2 dated 05.05.1982 ar.d then deveioped the subject property. It is further averred that since the date of purchase r.e., 22.07.2013 the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit plot and after purchasing the plot, the plaintiff with a view to construct a compound wall over the suit plot on 2O.O2.2O14, digged the pits for construction of compound wall to safe guard the suit plot from the land grabbers. It is further averred that defendant who has no concern over the title and possession over the suit propert5r tried to cause interference in the peaceful possession and obstructed the laborers of the plaintiff from digging the pits for compound wall over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

5. In the written statement hled by the defendant, it is contended that plaintiff has created and fabricated the alleged sale deed in his favour for the purpose of filing the present suit and infact the vendor has no title over the subject property ald further contended that the other two co-owners viz., K.Shivaraj and P.Narsimha of the suit schedule plot never executed the alleged G.P.A document No.574 of

1987. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not filed any '6 3 document to show his possession over the prayed to dismiss the suit. LNA, J S.A.No.57 of2024 subject property and

6. The trial Court basing on the pleadings of both the parties framed following issues: ' "i. Whether the plaintiff is lau.tful possessor of the suit sclLedule property? ii. Whether the plaintiff has purchnsed. ttrc suit propertg from lauful ouner? iii. Whether the defendant is lauful and bonafide purchaser of suit propertg? iu. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perp etu al injunction? u. To uhat reliep 7 Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, pWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to E}.3 were marked. 8. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit with an observation that plaintiff failed to establish his physical possession over the schedule plot and the question of interference by the defendant does not arise. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 29.10.2015, plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.3 of 201,6 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 10. Plaintiff before the appellate Court contended that since the date of the purchase, the vendor of the plaintiff is in possession i.e., from the year 1988 onwards, the alleged GPA in favour of Bala 4 LNA, J S.A.No.57 of2024 Chandar who executed the registered sale deed in favour of ttre defendant is much later to the execution of the GpA in favour of P.Shankar and also the execution of the registered sale deed to the vendor of the plaintiff and further contended that the trial Court failed to consider these aspects and erroneously dismissed the suit in favour of the defendant.

11. Defendant before the appellate Court contended that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record and further contended that plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the propert5r ald therefore, trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and it was further contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the reasoned order of the trial Court and basing on the grounds ald submissions made by both the learned counsel, the appellate Court had framed following issues: "i. Whether the plointiff k entitled for perpetual injunction as praged for? ii. WTrctLLer the impugned jud-gment of louer Court needs any inte rference? iii. To u,that reliej?" appellate Court on due consideration of oral and t2. The documentary evidence placed on record and on due appreciation of evidence on record on behalf of the plaintiff and taking into consideration the fact that sa,le deed was executed in favour of vendor of plaintiff ten years prior to the sale deed of the defendant i I l 6 5 LNA, ,) S.A.No.57 of 2024 and also fact that GPA holder Bal Chander, who executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant is the witness to the GPA executed in favour of P.Shankar under Ex.A.3 and also to the registered sale deed executed by the said GPA p.Shankar in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff under Ex.A.2 which cle'arly show that he is having knowledge about the execution of the GpA in favour of P.Shankar and also the registered sale deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff and therefore, set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.1O.2015 passed in O.S.No.70 of 201S and granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court had made following observation: '(i) Further, Ex.A.7/ EC clearly shouls about tlrc execution of regi.stered sale deed in fauour of the uendor of the plaintiff in the gear 1988 itself. In spite of that the defendant purchased. it under Ex.B.l in the Aear 1988 afier ten Aears. Defendant did not place ang euidence bg examining the uendors that there is no registered GPA at all executed in fauour of P. Shankar. (ii) As stated earlier, the suit schedule properTy is open plot, therebg there cannot be ang seporote document to proue the possession. If reallg there is no GPA in fauour of P.Shankar and- further the said GPA holder P.Shankar did not sell the suit schedule propertg in fauour of the uendor of the plaintiff, the d.efendant could haue placed the material to tllat effect but failed. No one is examined bg the defendant to \ \ l I i I r I I 6 LNA, J S.A.No.57 o12024 proue tLlot there is no GPA at all executed in fauour of P.SLnnknr and. he also did not execute ang registered sale deed in fouour of the uendor of the plaintiff. (iii) As stated earlier, the uend-or of the defendant alreadA executed he GPA in fauour of P.Stnnkar, uho alreadg executed th.e registered sale deed acting upon it in fauour of the uendor of the plaintiff much earlier to the exeattion of the GPA uitLaut cancellation of earlier one etc., it cannot be said that there is a title in fouour of the defendant. But on tLrc otlLer tnnd. the title is in fauour of tlrc plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properta."

13. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court dismissed the suit without granting perpetual injunction to the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff failed to produce any document evidencing his possession. Whereas, the hrst appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence and material placed on record held that plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the filing of the suit, thereby entitled for perpetual injunction and hence, allowed the appea-l setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

14. [rarned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit against the plaintiff without granting perpetual injunction to the plaintiff but the first appellate Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence, committed arr LNA, J S.A.No.57 of 2024 error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial 7 Court.

15. However, learned counsel for the 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 qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 10O C.P.C.

16. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisrons of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 1O0 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the hrst appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

17. Further, in Gurd.eu Kaur a. Kakll, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 10O C.P.C. is very limited ald it can be exercised only where a substantial question of larv is raised and fell for consideration.

18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court hnds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent frndings of frrst appellate Court, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the respondent ' (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 545 LNL J S.A.No.57 oJ2024 are factual in nature and no question of law, much less, a 8 substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.

19. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. -. Pending miscellaneous applications, if arly, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. I. NAGA LA JOINT REGI HMI R SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar' (with 2. The Principal iunior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B'Nagar' (with records, if any) records, if anY)

3. One CC to Sri Sridhar Lendalay, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri C. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh l+ I I HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210212025 JUDGMENT SA.No.57 ol 2024 1 ; iTAr,i- , z: I,i,fl M .,.l \:. \. r ,_ + -.,; o _: \\- r -/-, r ',/..i- "\-i:-----'--- I z o -b THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION +uC"A V 2{Q(: