The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrler Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of Xerox Copy of the judgment dated 27.O9.2024 passed in A.S.No.21 of 2022,on the fite of principal District Judge, Adilabad, in filingthe above appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the afficlavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the above S_A., passed filed against the A.S.Nlo.21 ol 2022, dated .27 .09 .2024, on the fite of the principal District Judge, Adilabad. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition Uncier Order 39 Rule 'l r/w, Sec'l 51 of C.p.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary/ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating suit schedule property. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : NONE The Court made the following :JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SE OND APPEAL No.55 of 2025 JUDGMENT: l'his Second Appeal IS liled challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, in A.S.No.2l of 2022, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 17.06.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Aditabad, in O.S.No.46 of 2017 was confirmed.

2. The appellant hercin is plaintilf and respondents are defendants, before the trial Court. F-or convenience, hereinafter the pafties 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.46 of 20ll before Senior Civil Judge, Aditabad, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of H.No.3-1-26512, admeasuring I I 1.1 I Sq.yds, out of which plinth area 250 sft in Sy.No.S5, situated at ward No.3, lllock No.1, Gunj Road, Adilabad (hereafter referred to as 'schedule propelly'). In the plaint it is averred that originally, one Pathr.rla Sharma was the owner and possessor of 2 l.\.t./ -\'.1 \; -ii.r/lr2i the schedule propefty and on 02.03.1996, he died teaving behind defendanr's as his legal heirs. Defendants being legar heirs executed GPA document No. lg6 of 2015, date 0g.01.2025. in thvour of the plaintiff to empower him to lease, mortgagc and also to sell the schedule rropefty. Basing on the said GpA, plaintirf executed sare deed in his name vide sale deed No.3694 ol20 15, dated 12.06.2015, lor a salc consideration of Rs.5,95,000/_ and paid the amount ro defendants and further schedule property has been rnutated in his name; that defendant No. I, was in possession of the scl_redule prope rty and reque:;ted praintiff to alow him to stay trrere tiU he f-u-rds an atternative accommodation, but, even after six months, he intentionalJy did not vacate the pr.emises. Therefore, plaintiff issued legal notict: on 10.07 .2017, however, defendants did not conrply the same. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendants filed written statenrent denying the allegation made in the plain: and contended that they ar.e joint o\,ners and posscssors of the schedule propefty and have sold a parl of the H.No.3- r-265/2 to an extent of Ac.33.77 Sq.yds to Anitha Sharma and she sord the samc to one Ganpladhar; that defendant No.2, is rcsiding in tlie r.emair.ring J LN..t, J y rio 55 oI202i portion ofthe schedule propefty since long back and was also paying property tax from time to time; that ptaintilf got registered a sale deed for 1 000 sft, in his la vour without consent and knou'ledge of the deiendants and the same is not binding upon them and prayed to disrniss the suit. 5 On the basis of the above pteadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for tria[:- " (l) IYhether the plaintilf is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit schedttle property as praltedJsvz (2) Whether the plaintdf is entitled lo recover possession of the suit schedule property b)' evincing lhe defendant Nos. I and 2 as prayedfor? (3) To what relieJ? "

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, PWI was exatnined and Exs'A2 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 and DW.2 were examined, Ex.B 1 to Ex.84 were rnarked l. After futl-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the triai Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2022. .,-.... 4 L \.1- J -\. 1 \b -i i 1)/ 241-i 8 The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- "h, a .suit.for declaration of title, the ptaintilf is required to prcve his case on his own strengtJl at,ttl ha.s to .gtand on l.t i.t otvn leg.;. Even, if the defendants have not bee, uble to prove their owtter.ship over the suit proper0,, the plaintilf connot be .taid to l.,ave succeedecl in e.stahlishing the title to tlte suit property, ruilhout proving the title through rlocttmentarv eyidence in his favcur. In this case, both parties admitted that defenclant,.s .fZtthzr was the original owner anrl both of them foited to prove lhe.same. As discttssed above, as the defendants had r1o tille over the suit land, ancl so they cannot atihorize the plctintil/.b1: erccuting GPA to execLie sale tleecl on their behalf Like that, the plaintilf had also no right to register the suit land on lti.r name vide Ex.A2 as he did not got any rights.,,

9. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact_ finding Cou11, re-appreciated the entire evidence and matcr.ial available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated 27.09.2024, rhereby, confimring the judgment of the rrial Court. I0. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed AS hereunder:- "22.Wht'n the plaintrlf aclntitted thal the defendant.; are nor owner.s of tlte suit schedule house, how they are havrnq right to erecuk .ex.Al GpA in favour of the plainttfi in respect oJ suit ) L\,.t J SA.\o )5 01)D5 schedule property dulhorizing hint lo sell or tnanage or mortgage the same to the others The plaintdf did nor piace any material before the cotLrt to show that the delendant A/os. 1, J to B are the owners of tlrc suit schedttle property as on the date of Ex.Al GPA"

23. It is well settled prirtciple of law thrtt one cannot convet a better title what he had. In the instant case the plaintifffailed to establish the right and title of the defendant Nos- l, 3 to I over the suit schedule property to execute Ex.Al GPA in his favotu' authorizing him lo deal with lhe suit schedule property When the defendant Nos.t, 3 lo B have no right to execule the Ex'Al GPA, basing on Ex.Al GPA the pktintilf cannot convey a hetter title to the vendee under Ex.A2 registered sale tleecl.

24. In a suil. for declaration of title the heaty burden lies on the shoulders of the plainti/f to prove his ov)n case irrespective of the defence set up by the opposite parlt ln the instanl case lhe plaintifffailed to prove the title and right of defendant Nos.l, 3 to B to execute Ex.Al GPA in his fttvour, as such tlrc plaintilf shall not get right and title over the suit scheduLe property b)) virtue of Ex.A2 registered sale deed. Merely mLtlating the name of the plaintiff in revenue records ttnder Ex.AJ does not cr?ate any right and title in his favour over the suit schedule property In view of the said discussions this court is of the oPinion that the plaintiff failed lo prove his right, title over suit schedule proper|'based on Exs.Al and A2- Accordingly point Nos l and 2 are answered in favor,tr of the respondents " 6

1..\ J. ./ .\.1 .\b -;i o/10-l-i I l. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel lor the appellant. Pcrused the entire material available on record. l2 Lerrned coulisel lor thc appeilant contended that the trial Court as rvell as first appellate Courl without properly appreciating thc or.al and documentary evidence placed on record, have come to erroneous conclusiou a,d dismissed the suit. Leamed counsel for the appelrant lurther submitted that both the coufts have committed er.ror in not considering the adn-rissions of DW.1 and DW.2 on ownership of Pathr.rlal liharma and their in1-reritance of the schedule propert,,-. Lcarncd c,)unsel further submitted that both the coufts have r.ecorded er.oneous findings that plaintiff failed to establish rris case and also owncrship and inheritance and thus prayed to allow the second appeal. ll. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Courl concurrently held that suit is fited for declaration of title and recovery of perpetual injunction, therefore, burden lier; on the plaintiff to substantiate his case, which plaintiff failed to prove, thus dismissed the suit. First appellate Cor-ul categorically observed that the plaintiff himsell admitted that 7 t'l\.4 J 5.1 \i 55 of )025 def-endants are not owners of the schedule prope(y and therefore, one cannot convey better title than what he had and thus Ex.A l, i.e', GPA executed in favour of the plaintiff and sale deed executed basing on the said GPA, does not confer any title to the plaintiff. First appellate Coufi fufiher observed that mutation of plaintifl s name in propefty register of municipality does not create or confer any title in favour of plaintiff. | 1. In considered view of this Court, the leamed counsel for appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Courl in this Second Appeat. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualily as the substantial cluestions 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 fited under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Courl, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 8 t.\"1. l S,1..\o -j-t o/ lrll-i

16. Fufiher, in Gurdev Kour v. Kakit, the Apex Oourl held that the High court sitting in Second Appear cannot examine the evidence - oncc again as a third trial Courl and the power under Section 100 c'P C is'er1' Iirnited and it can bc exercised only whcre a substantiar question of law is raised and fa[]s for consideration.

11. Having considered the entire materiar available on record and the finding.s rccorded by the first Appellate Courl, this Courl finds no ground oreason waranting interference with the said findings, uncler Section lOil C.P.C. Mor.eover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question o1 [a,uv arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. i 8. He nc:c. the Second Appeal faits and the same is accordilgll, dismissed at the stage oladmission. No cojsts. Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed. r 6yuoo+) 1 3opro"or Cq.rrt (odea 5\L //TRUE COPY// SD/. N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR .l SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Court of the Principat District Judge, Adilabad 2 The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad 3. One CC to rlRt KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies \r HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 JUDGMENT' SA.No.55 of 2025 r-_ _-:=-l:- ,.i .t: 29 AUS 26 f t' ,. c/ .,.- DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION (" ,dd ft.w