The High Court · 2025

..Respondents/Respondents/Defendants No.2 to 6 IA NO 2oF 202s Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in tl-r circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr: rrt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment and Decree passec by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy in O.S. No. 6 of 2009, dt. 07-0ll 2016 as confirmed by the ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy in ,1 S. No. 32 of 2016, dt. 30-10-2024 pending disposal ofthe Second Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ The Cour-t de!ivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA SE{OND APPEA L No.288 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Ileard Sri P. Srihari Nath, learned counsel lor the appellant on adr-rrission. Perused the entire record.

2. This Second Appeal is prefened aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned II Additionat District Judge, Sangareddy, ('First Appellate Court'), in A.S.No.32 of 2016 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein and conftrming the jttdgment alld decree dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangarrcddy, ('trial Court'), in O.S.lJo.6 oi 2009, which was filed seeking dectaration of title, recovery of posscssioll and conscquent perpetual iniunction by the respondent herein/plalntifL The parties are hereinalter re ferred to as they are referred before the trial Court'

3. The brief facts of rhe case are that the ptaintiff filed suit for cleclaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction with respect to open land admeasuring 15X15 feet i'e', 25 square yards with l{.No.3-54, Tangadpatly Viltage, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District' ('suit schedule property'). The plaintiff derived title under registered sale deed document bearing No.4242 of 2008, dated l5'i2'2008 lrom his '''etrdor RY, J sn 288 2025 Vadde Venkamma. The defendants have made illegz.l constructions and therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. 'l'he case of the defendants is that the entire e):, lnt of 150 square yards in IJ.No.3-54 was owned by one late Papaiah (Fr ther) and after his death of said Papaiah (Father) the land was succeeded b , his six sons with 25 square yards each. Thc youngest son of Papaiah (| .ther), who is also narned as Papaiah (Son) purchased the shares of all the rther five brothers undcr simple sale decd and thus, became owner of 150 quare yards. 'l-hc said Papaiah (Son) sotd the total extent of 150 sc rare yards under unregistered simple sale deed in favour of defendant N r .l on 01.04.2007 Therefbre, defendaut no. I claims to be owner under thc L tregistered sirnple sale deed and therelbre, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintifl'got examined P.Ws.l and 2 and g: marked Exs.A-l and A-2, whereas, thc defendants got examined D.\\,s I and 2 and gor rnarked Exs.B- | to B- l0

6. Upon cxamining evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as owner o the suit schedule propefiy and directing thc delendants to deliver the vzr ant possession of the same within three months frorn the date of the decree . Thc lciief sousht ] 2 \ RY, J sA 288 2025 for grant of perpetual injunction has been dismissed as plaintiff was not admittedly in the possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court did not permit defendant No.1 to mark simple sale deeds as exhibits as they were unregistered documents and for which stamp duty and penalty were not paid. It is held that as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Acr, 1882, any document which conveys immovable propefty exceeding value of Rs. 100/- need to be reduced into writing and registered as mandated under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. When such a document is unregistered, under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, upon paymcnt ol penalty said document can be considered for the collateral purpose o f ascertaining possession, l. [n the instant case, plaintiff admitted that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property and sought relief of recovery of possession- -[herefbre, even in case, simple sale deed under which def'endant No.l is claiming tltle would be impounded the same could have been pcrused only lor collateral purpose, On said premise, defendant No. I could not produce the docurnent under which he was claiming title to the suit schedule propcrty and therefore, could not defend the suit.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, del-endant No.l preferred first appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2016 before the First RY, J sA 288 2025 Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide judg ment and decree dated 30.10.2024 confirmed the judgment and decree of t re trial Court i.e , dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said concurrent F ndings of the trial Couft and the First Appetlate Court, the present Second I ppeal is preferred raising the lollorving substantial questions of law: "1. Whcthcr non-cousidcration of oral and documcl ary cvidencc adduced by the t)ct'endant i.e.. purchase of co-shares pr1 pefiy by Dw- 2 (Papaiah) rvhich is substantial qucstion of law to der:i le the sub.iect matter'l

2. Whether the documcnt of Family settlement is r quired to be registered undcr Scction l7 (t) (b) olRegistration Acl?

3. Whethet the rcjcction of'the documents tendered b1' the defendant to establish thc casc. thc non consideration of the (:( ntents of the above rcsulted in miscarriage of'.iustice?"

9. Frour the above substantial questions of law, it is ;een that question No.1 and 3 are trvo sides ol'the salne coin i.e., with resl) :ct to trial Court's decision to declinc marking ol the unregistered sale ( eed produced by defendant No.t in supporl of his case. The three irn; crtant facts to be considered arc that late Papaiah (Father) was owner of I i0 square yards of land in tl.No.i-54. Tangadpally Vitlage, Sadasivpel Mandal, Medak District, and upon his death the said property was divj< ed into 25 square yards each and the sarre was succeeded by six sons c1 Papaiah (Father). To this extent. thc title of Papaiah (Son)/D.W.2 is impt:r cable. Then, it is 4 (. RY, J sn_288 2025 the case of Papaiah (Son)/D.W.2 that he purchased the shares of his remaining five brothers and thus, became owner of total extent of 150 square yards of which the suit schedule property is part- The suit schedule prope(y was purchased by Papaiah (Son) from his brotheri/Yellaiah under unregistered simple sale deed. As per the Registration Act, 1908, no title of imrnovable property can be conveyed under an unregistered sale deed' .fhus, the vendor ol defendant No.l did not acquire any title fiom his brother/Yellaiah under unregistered simple sale deed. Compounding this situation, Papaiah (Son) sold the total extent of 150 square yards under a simple unregistered sale deed to defendant No.l . The analogy of the unregistered sirnple sale deed incapable to convey title as per the Registration Act, 1908, holds good for the unregistered sale deed cxecuted by the Papaiah (Son) in favour of defendant No.1.

10. In contrast, the suit schedule property i.e., 25 square yards which l-ell ttom the property ol Papaiah (Father) was succeeded by Yellaiah (son ol Father Papaialt) and upon his death to his wife Vadde Venkamma' 'the succession of Vadde Venkamma is stah-rtory and therefore, there can be no dclect in her titte. Said vadde venkamma as absolute owner executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The titte can be conveyed only uyb+: registered document and said requirement is met by document of 5 RY, J sA 288 2025 Vadde Venkamma executed in favour of the plaintiff. I hus, it is seen that the plaintifls title is valid and stands to judicial scrutin1. Whereas, the title claimed by defendant No.1 and his vendor i.e., Papaiah ( ion) are defective Therefore, the trial Courl and the First Appellate ,- ourt have rightly decreed thc suit in favour of the plaintifl and granted dt: laration of title as well as recovery of possession

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Cour. does not see any reason to frame substantial question Nos.l and 3 raised i ,y the appellant as the same were already dealt with by both the triat Courl .s well as the First Appellate Court and have given concurrent ftndings.

12. Coming to substantial question ol' law No.2, thc same is frivolous question as any document which may include lamil.r settlement if the subject matter is transler of title the same has to be regist ,red under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Courl Joes not see any substantial questions ol law to entertain the present Se: rnd Appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C., there are no merits in the Secr rd Appeal and the same is liable to be disrnissed at the stage of- admission ( L 6 RY, J sA 288 202s

14. ln the result, the Second Appeal 1S dismissed at ttre stage of admission confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in O.S.No.6 of 2009 and A.S.No.32 of 2016 respectively. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, iIany, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGIS ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The ll Additionat District and Sessions J udge at Sang The Junior Civil Judge at Sangaredd v One CC ro SRt pALLE SRIHARINAT H, Advocate [OpUCl Two CD Copies ADI(PSL 7 HIGH COURT DATED:2711U2A25 JUDGMENT SA.No.288 ot 2025 .-7 )F s=iAr o (J ? , JIN ?[1i , :( i - *.;'.) DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS b \