The High Court · 2025

2. Sri Madisheti Srinivas, S/o Sri Narsaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Tailoring, R/o H.No.2-2-160, Magaliwada, Jagtial Town, Jagtial District, Telangana State.

3. Sri Madishetti Ramadevi, D/o Sri Narsaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.2-2-'160, Magaliwada, Jagtial Town, Jagtial Diskict, Telangana State. ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction, restraining the Respondents, their agents and authorized persons, from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of any third parties, by way of sale, lease, mortgage or in any mode of transfer, during the pendency of above second appeal. SUIT SC:H EI]ULE PROPERTIES Item No.1:- House bearing N,r !l-2-200, situated at Jagtial bounded by. EAST H:r st, cr Rajanna WEST. F o,rs: r>f Pusala Chandramouli NORTH l.abrarsthan SOUTH R:aC Item No.2. House bearing No :2-jl-160, situated at Jagtial bounded bv EAST: H o rsr: of Gatla Venkamma WEST. Ho .sr) (rf Ravi NORTH. F or s;e of Arumalla Laxminarayana SOUTH. Houser of Duvasi Ravi Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Gangadhar Adv. For Sri N. Mukrrnd Reddy Counsel for ther Re:;oondents: Sri P. Giri Krishna The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEA L No.68 of 2024 JUDGM ENT: This Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 04.09.2023, passed by the principal District Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.ll of 2019, whereunder and whereby appeal dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, crared 09.07.2019, passed by the Senior civil Judge, Jagtiar, in o.S.No.ii3 of 20 r r. 2' The appe,ant is plaintiff and respondent Nos. t to 3 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, which led to fiting of.the present Second Appeal are that plaintiff filed the suit seeking parrition and separate possession of 1/4,h share in the property. plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are children of defendant No. l. Item No. I and 2 houses bearing Nos.2_2_220 and, 2_2_160 respectively, situated at Jagtial proper (hereafter referred as ,schedule property,) are owned and possessed by the defendant No.l which was acquired by way of succession and the same are joint family properties. plaintiff got mamied in 1980 and at that time, the defendant No.l did not give any \ \ 2 LNA, J :.1 No.68 of2024 dowr r,r .,lrrre in schedule properties. When tle plairr iff came to - know tl at defendant No. I is intending to make part tion of his prolrer it s rn ly among defendant Nos. 2 and 3, plai'rtilt approached delcndar t \o.l for her share, but defendant No. I denied to give her share. H.rn:: plaintiff filed O.S.No.83 of 201I seeking I '4'r' share in the sch er lule nroperties.

4. [ )eltndant Nos. I and 3 filed written stalenl]nt lenying the claim of thr: plaintill that the mother of plaintiff and cleleldant Nos. 2 and 3 durinrr her lifetime purchased Item Nc,.l of tl e schedule propeflv iu lre name of the defendant No.2, wl-rc' lt,;ls rrinor at that tir.ne untlclrale deed document No.489/1984, dated 14.03.1984. Therea Itr:r. as old constmction was in dilapidated corrdition, the delendrrnt lrc.2. constructed a house by obtaining Jrernt ission lrom the MLrn Lcipa lity and the said property was mrrtated ir his narne. Hence, llcnr lJo.I of the schedule property is selfacquirerl property of the de'ertl rrt No.2. With regard to Item No .Z cl Lh e schedule propefif. it is stated that the said property was purchased by the defendrrn ^.1c.1 under registered sale deed docunien: Nc,2/1962 on

03.01. 19t,2, r:nce, the same is self acquired prope rty of th.: def-endant No.l. 'l hrrs, the contention of the plaintiff that she is er tit le 1 a share in -/ 3 LNA, J SA.No.68 of)024 the schedule property is incorrect. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis ofthe above pleadings of both the parries, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- "(l) Whether the plainl schedule properties are succeetled by defendant NO.l from his father? IJ so, whether is ancestral property? (2) Whether lhe plaintilf is enlitled .ft.,r parlition as prayetl for? (3) To whar relieJ? "

6. To substantiate her case, plaintiff examined herself as lrWl and got marked as Exs.Al to A,5. The defendants No. I and 2 examined themselves as DWI and DW2 and got marked as Exs.Bl to Ex.836. 7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions ofboth the pafties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated09.07.2019, L with the following observations: " I l. Though the claim of plainliff is that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties succeeded by defendant No.l from lris father, she has not filed even a sifule document to show that items No. I and 2 were ) "l 4 LNA. J SA No.68 of2024 ( ('qt,tred by thefather of defendant No.l rt,ajaialt ,tnd that t/tc.) .t,cre succeedetl by defendant No. t. (),q tlt : otlrcr htrt,t, E.rs.BI and Bl3 a t l :t /, e .s c h e cl u l e O r r O "'; : : : : "' !: r' ;::: : r:r,' : r: r i : : : r';::, i\, is./ather and that they are ancestrc,l .ioittr family .tr o1;t r tie.s. The defendant No. t is a tailot. b), Jtrpibssion Luid 111 y'61./1s61 as sttclt, as per his occupt tiott i,, er.O t dtl:l tt.; par his evidence as DWI. He adntitt,:cJ that,re ln.s 1 tt, c'l,tt.;ed item No. I of schedule properq, ,tu the ttc4te o/. Iti.s .yrt,t T'he ptaintiff cottld not produce arLt c,1,icle t ce t() r,1r 1 111,11 tltr, dafcntlattt /\,o.1 ltad any otht'.,. jrtirtt .t rtrtily /,',,'tr" tL'.t. tt(quirctl 0rom lti.s father, frorn ttre i,,r,,, ," ,-r1 v' \1 '/1 /,s cotrlcl heve purchased ikm Aits. I unl 2. 7-J,c t,ti,r a, issue No. I is decidecl against the ptlait111fi. , 8 A1;e;icrrd by the judgrnent and plaintiff pr c1i: r.ecl A.S.No.l I District Jrrd ue . Jagtial. decree rlarerl O\.07.2019, of 2019 on the file oi- the principal 9' orr a,1:ear, trre first Apperate courl, bein5r the ,;rar fact_ findiltg ( b.rrt. re_appreciated the entire evidenc.o and material available rn re::rd and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgme nt dated 01.09.2023, rjrr:rrrby, confiming the judgment of the trial Court by with the ol;scn r.ions hereunder: / 5 L\,.1. J

5.1.\'o.68 olt021 "l5. Prt4 in her cross-examination admitted that item No. l house was purchased by her mother Venkamma from Gatla Gangaram and G.Lakshmi vide registered sale deed docuntent No 489/1984 dated 14.3.1984 fo, a consideration of Rs.17000/- in the name of second defendant and it is in possession of second defendant and second defendon t obtained permission from Municipality and constructed house and also obtained water connection in his name. PW2 stated that first defendant acquired item No.2 from his father and item No.2 from his mother-in- lau . " I 0. The first Appellate Court further observed as hereunder:- " 1 7. Lt. B l and Ex. B l 3 copy of sale deeds prove that item No. I was purchased in the name of second defendant and item No.2 was pttrchased by the first defendant. Ex.B2 to B I 2, B l6 to 835 proves that item No. I and 2 are standing in the name of defendants I and 2 and they are in the possession and enjoyment of properties as absolute owners. Plaintilf did not produce any evidence for proving the nature of the suit properties. Foilure on the part of the plaintilf is lending support to the version of DWI and 2 on the other hand, Defendants I and 2 successfulll, proved lhrough Ex.Bl to 836 that suit schedule properties are lheir own properties and they do not belong to joint \ family." 6 l)iA, J \ 1.\ .t 68 of2021 1 1. H,:ard li'i M.Gangadhar, leamed counsel lor the app,:llant and Sri P. Giri K'shna, learned counsel for the respon,lent;. Pt,rused the entire mate:ial iLvailable on record

12. Lerrnte,l (:ounsel lor the appellant contended that rhe tr.ial Court as well es fir':t appellate Court erroneously dismissed the suit that without t o rsrrlt:ring the crucial aspect that the satd prop,.:rties are purchase(l rv def'endant No.1 from the funds of r.he joir: r family. Leamed ()ounsel lurther contended that trial courl as u,ell as First Appellate ('or.rr tailed to consider the Exs.Al to ,a.5 rvhicr clearly shows thitt tlLt: suit properlies are the ancestral propefii€ s of the appellant trd ,lt,: respondents. Learned counsel further conte rded that judgment prssed by both the courts are perverse and sanre is liable to be interferet l.

13. A pe 'ul;irl of record would disclose that the trial Cour. as well as the first ,\1r;t,:llate Couft are concurrently held that tl-rc ichedule properties ate trt allcestral properties and are self accuirr:d p.operlies of defendi,n 'Jts. I and 2 and therefore ptaintiff cr:nnot cl,tim any share. 7 1N,1. J SA No.68 of202l

14. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakil , tha Apex Court held that the Fligh Court 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. I 5. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court' this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section I 00 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question ol law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal'

16. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed . No costs. Pending miscellaneous apptications, if any, shall stand closed' t11e? I gr:grana Cou+ Cdd€,} s\t //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal District Judge' at Jagtial (with The Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial' One CC to Sri N. Mukund Reddy' Advocate. One CC to Sri P. Giri Krishna Advocate [OPU Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 4 5 Kam/gh YY ds, if anY) loPUCl HIGH COURT DATED:1ArcY2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.68 of 2024 '10\ 4' C o ? E ,tltl 2925 ( ,. t./) \".1 -. t: -cuEO 't DISMISSING OF THE SECOND APPEAL

7.tP% w 6{f