High Court · 2025

.Appella nts/Plaintiffs Aoed about 48 Years, Occ- Business, R/"o.H.No.84-31 1, Ganesh Nagar, Karimnagar lA NO: 3 oF 2025 ... Respondents/Defendants Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleasedto grant an injunction restraining the petition schedule ProPerty. Respondents herein from alienating the For the Appellants : Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate Counsel for the ResPondents: At The staoe of admission, ii,e Court"macie the followng: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.83 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2024 in A.S.No.44 of 2022 passed by the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, confrrming the judgment dated O5.08-2O19 in O.S.No.266 of 2Ot2 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, the present Second Appeal is hled.

2. Heard Sri J.T.Siva Seshu representing Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the Appellants.

3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the trial Court and the first appellate court and the respondents herein are the defendants in both the trial Courts. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiffs liled a suit for declaration of the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2023 /2}ll, dated 14.07.2O11 executed by defendaat No.l in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and declaration of registered sale deed ) ) 2 LNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 bearing Doc.No.2729 of 2Oll, dated 12.O9'2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 as nulL and 'roid and not binding on the plaintiffs and a relief for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

5. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac' 1- O3 guntas., out of Sy.No.3OB/D, situated at Asifnagar Viliage of Kari.mnagar Mandal. The Plaintiffs are the sons and iegal heirs of one Mr.Ravanaveni Meenaiah. Originatly, Mr' Ravanaveni Venkati was the owner, pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.3O8/D to an extent of Acs.3.O7 gr.rntas and he died leaving behind. his three sons namely Ravanaveni Anjaiah, Mallaiah and Meenaiah, who succeeded to the said property' There was partition among the legal heirs of Ravalaveni Venkati and the suit land of Ac. 1.03 guntas fell to the share of late Meenaiah oul of total extent of Ac.3.07 guntas and the said Meenaiah expired in the year 2O06, leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors to the said property. How'ever, the name oi the original owner Ravanaveni Venkati continued in the revenue records. The plaintiffs submitted an application to the I I I 3 LNA,J S.A.f\,lo.83 of 2025 1n Tahsildar, Karimnagar records in respect ofthe suit Iand being the legal heirs. 6. to enter their names in the revenue It is further averred residing in gutf countries that the plaintiff Nos. l atd 2 are and plaintiff No.3 is residing at Hyderabad for his education. In the absence of plaintiffs in the village, defendant Nos.l and 2 got entered their narnes as pattadars in the revenue records; that defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed beanng Doc_No.2OO3/20I l, dated 14.O2.2O11 favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 executed a sale deed bearing Doc.No.2729 of 2O11, dated 12.O9.2O11 in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule property. It is averred that the suit land is covered by Granite quarries and therefore, defendant Nos. I and 2 demanded the plaintiffs to sell the same for distress price, but the plaintiffs refused to sell it; that in view of the same, defendalt Nos.l and 2 brought into existence the said sale deeds and they are trying to occupy the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit. 7. The defendants frled written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the partition has taken place arnong Ravanaveni Mallaiah and his brothers long back and the land allotted to the share of Ravanaveni Meenaiah , ) .\ \ 4 LNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 was already sold by him during his lifetime and the plaintiffs did not succeed to the suit larrd' from him as alleged; that' Ravanaveni Mallaiah sold Ac'1'02 guntas in Sv'No'3OS/D i'e ' the subject land along with his other land Ac ' 1 'O6 guntas in Sy.No.29O out of the share allotted to him' to Nerella Rajamouli- d.efendant No' l uide registered sale deed Doc'No'2382/78' dated 29.O6.lg71.-'lt is further averred that since then' defendant No' 1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and his name was also mutated in the revenue records as pattadars anci possessors; that defendant No-1 executed registered sale deed uide Doc'No'20O3/2011' rlated 14'O7'2O11' in favour of defendant No'2 and in turn defendant No'2 execuled sale deed uirle Doc.No.2 72g l2oL|, dated, 12.09.2o11 in favour of defendant Nos'3 and 4 and their names were also mutated in the reventre records uide proceeding No'B/ 5248 I 42l2oll ' dated lt is further averred that the suit land was 13. i 1 .2O i I ' converted into non-agricultural land by paying conversion fee uide proceeding No'N/50g1201'2' dated' 17'01'2012 fot the purpose of installation of granite stone cutting machine on the suit lanci and defendant Nos'3 and 4 obtained Gram Panchayat permission ort 25'02'2012' It is further contended that the tNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 plaintiffs have no land in Sy.No.30B/D and they did not succeed from their father. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 8' Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed *re following issues: declaration through R. Meenaiah? ,h:ft:. the plaintiffs succeeded t. ,fr. tJ.e basis of above pleadings rhe foltowing issues were ;j":" 1. Whether the suit schedule. mentioned property fell in the share of the_Ravanaveni Meenaiah rn the family sculement? ?: "rli".nedule menrioned prop€rty 3. Whether defendalt No.1 pur^chased the suit schedule mentioned property from its rightfut owner? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of rhe surt schedule mentioned property? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are. entitled to the relief of declaration of their title ro the suir schedure *;";;;;j';..;"*;a as possessors of the suit schedule _""tio.rji -J.l#.Iuz 6. Whether the plaintiffs are cnUtled f", tt " i."f iIi"i declararion of the resistered sale deeds hearing r.i".zoiiTioii''#i rrrolrol or the oIlice of the Sub Registrar-, Gangadhara as null ald void? 7. Whether the plainti"ffs are entilled f". rh;-;;l*f o[ perpetual ;rilfffr:H:iiec,tof thesuit"cr..aur"i,."ii"o,,.?-p.oo".,r, 9. During the_.9ourse of trial, plaintiff No.l was examined as PWl, Sri Ravanaveni Chandramouli was examined as pW2 and Sri Ega Karunakar was exarnined as pW3 and got marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. I is examined as DW1, Sri Bashetty Laxman was examined as DW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B1g. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence as well as pleadings dismissed the suit uid.e Judgmen t and Decree dated \ 5 LNA,-I S.A.No.83 of 2025 'lhe trial Court in its' judgment made the following o5.08.2019. cbservaticns: . -wfr1i triti'i^-itit prtgura t9 "The pahali for the year lg7 8-7-g marked as' Ex'84' clearly reveals that, the name of deiendant No'1 was entered in possessron In t].e subsequent pahanies' column in the vear 1;;;;;^il"1f- g* BS to 87 shows that the name o[ which :rre marked ""i"t 311 f16p the defendalt No t t:crtttjrrit""i 1" po*t""lo" No l has ^column pahanies for the vear ffi; d;' ih" ""::-t:l:u"rroant been record.ed. as pattadar and possessor in- respect of Ac 1-O2gts of land out or sv llo sJJ/.--n ttll A; date of frling of the suit and "litirig The quesl-ion to be oi t-h" p..""r,t conlinued .u.n u.t,", -suit. purchased 'th: ansrvered hcre is, *h;;;? itte atrendattt No' 1 property from the tigf-tif"f owner? It is admitted fact that' one Ravanaveni Venkati *?;'ir";;A"al paiggar and possessor o-f the Iand in Sv.No.3os/D';;;;"ttrr?of n"'s-ozgts and the -=:""t-f.,:11 Venkati succcedecl the sard land That there was a family partltron among lhe "o." ot t"id Venkati' It is not disputed that' Ravanavem Venkati and as alreadv noted Mallaiah is not the =;; ;iii;;;;eni portions of land i't'as supra, there i= ;1i" ileged familv PTt]!i"l rhereJore' "o allotted Lo sons o[ v;[lti it is to be assumed rhat, said Ravanaveni Mallaiah Karimnagar t e ' vendor of ptaintitf waslir"tt"al"a covered undlr sale deed marked as Ex. B 1 and he was the absolute owner of the land sold to defendant No. i trerlin. From deriving the title from Ravanavenr Mallaiah through tegistttta sale deid has becorne the owncr' f"a covered under registered sale paltadarcoa po"t"t$i "i-'f't decd bearing o"t lli'"zse'l i978' Apart from that' the plaintiff nor theirfatherdidnotquestionorchallengetheregisteredsaledeed in favoirr of defendant No l herein executed t y H,'""t"'"-ii M;i-; ;t is to be presumed that' the said in any mann.t d;;;;;, Ravalaveni Ivr"rrrr;"^""q"ired the absolu-te rights over- the sald fossession ln view of the above property even by rliscussion. it has to;; ;;il that thc defendant No l purchased the proPerty from rightful owner'" "Thc Plaintiiis exhibited only documents out of which Ex Al to A6 are thc p.hrtr, ...oiJt, rvhich can teveal, the possession over- the agricultural lands- On perusal of the- Ex'A I to A6' the names of the pi.lr,tir" is nowhere found, either as p"jg1l:T-tt:- po"=a="o.t. On the other hand, the pahani recorci as unoer Dx D'r 1 has been continuing as to B 16 revezrls that, the defendant ort.rrerarrdpo"'"."o.orR".l.ozgt"oflandinSy.No.308/D.'Thus, possession cver the suit land the defendant tras established ";is from the datc ot his purchase in t1'e year 1978 to tlll 2Ol7 Ex B 17 signihes that, the defendant No 1 is the absolute owner lvith -;;; -No' 7 LNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 name alrd style as Giriia Grarites absolute tifle ov i!ix#t;i,r"+:*:fi,i*$:##ffi::r.,,j#i: Industry in the tl Ex.B lg .l.rrl, thar, the granire indusky of defendanr No.3 "r.,t?.l,ir" ""a o_ *"l..,Jr".ji.*", ,ri".,"',L".1"ii",'"""or?ioJ:X".##3S:rTf t#i1Lfl ll the ;;.;;"; ;;'io.ve said documentary $:::.fi"":::""fl the possession of defenaanls."ilffilr; rhere is ,,o ,rru "rllj ro the oral evirte6gs of I he ptaintiffs as :i*ffi #t*f{dryt""?.j}*tr"T5,**1.""T:_..::"?; -as" il ini il*,r,"ance "lr" ^rn. "; " piu-, na]res are entered in r( ri"ar'"f#"f;:::1al-available on record, the .plaintirfs railed in trat, they su"ce.ded ,rr. p."p..,v .i their father a.ra trr"c,.e- lo^;how of ui.."rii.# i.rurelr ili 1::'ff::'f :.til--:l r h a r, r hey ..",i.,"otll' -'a". it' p rope. v As per the ffi :!!,# i,"je"ffi i:'L:lJ::_::1, Xf t ; ;'.:;"?,!.TJ-"tit"'1 +"..,,r,.- a"E"i#i"iJr p,."r,."ed the suir a""L.ai.s-J'b*;iiifr *ffi.trrtxl*;::l,n*:"x,fni ;:I l}}dTff:[;:]*'9 ";d..';; ;i frI",n. Ex B, was or-,he +0.y.u,"'*,";;1";:.;1li:H,"^?JiT*H,.,[**i:i[t o:P:.4o"r:4il' N;. i' u.l. n," brorher inturn ii:*"..'."., "li" ne to his purchasers a"r."ar-, rv"li ,',J'I through registered deeds. bearing Doc Nos 2o23l20t1 and 2729/2O1,. ,1r" or",11,'? utterly failed to show. in whar *rvi1,| urro". "a ".i ui"ai";;; ;ii: "uia'..ui:;"::.Iutt" plainriff. Therefore. ,ll3:-otto" are. invajid i"gi"t",.a';JJ;:;i""[r"#rJ3:::*:::rb.r8;;ff ;,H:,*,!l; jl; are null and void and not u*-a_* *rrjrr""rln th._., 10. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.266 of 2072, platntiffs preferred appeal ujde A.S.No.4 4 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the I Additiona_l District Judge at Karimnagar. 1 1. The First Appellate Court being final court on facts reappreciated the evidence and the material placed on record and dismissed the Appeal uide Judgment ald Decree \ 8 LNA,I S.A.No.83 of 2025

23.07.2024. In the impugned judgment the hrst appellate Court made the foliorving obsen'aticns: is- "nd "Plaintiffs pleaded declaration o! gq".''-td"t Sec'34 of S R in accordance with tipwl "a Pw 2 Act. Though otur ""iali"I the pleadings; th" d;;;";;" vide Ex'Al to A6 never substantiate rheir conrenrio". ,".;;;i;;;.e i..t" ",*-e at.the plaintiJTs. ln such ' a'iv bo'und . to answer Ex B I circumstances, plt;i;it ?" document. rr'itarv r* e i i"*llpi"In..-tt't"a ald names of plaintiffs cousinarrd,.,.t"",,-'.u.seeninpahanies.Insuchcircumstances knorvledge .ottt"t tttto"f,l'y' Cft'ttfy plaintiffs started their case also.pleaded ignorance on from the datc of death"oitt'"it f"tn"t th. g.--rd of been to Gulf country for livelihood " "Ex.BI is of 1978. Father of plamtiifs <iie<i in 20O6' There is aimost a gap oI 32 ycas. Plainr iirs a-r'e J'w Uo""a to explain lhe reason [o!- a"tirlE the life time of their father' [t not challcnging the Ex B ' the property infers that thcir father have knowiedge "d i 9{*} the death p1:otiff,: ^'f*r was property alienated tt" itf lq*it"l -1n" of their father carnc 'op *'ttt'.-t.h.c-"r.rt' t'vhen there isa huge ap of 30 to 40 o to 40 gears, tne fimitation would certainly comes into play' i'-' tuch circumstances or clever Silencc cannot be an "t;;;; to accede to the claim o[ the ;";;; dralting shall not b" " plaintifts." "The Sccond plea o[ the plaintiffs is of deciaration to declare the sale ;J void' Absohrtelv no material decd undcr Ex AT and "1I;;;i1 their claim ' When issue ";";;;';t olacecl before thc trial tt""it =rrUttuttti"t coupred and xi..i.rli;;;""io-'a"i-" connectedtodeclarationottitle;andoncemainissueisnegatived; the plaintiffs cleverly their issue cannot stand t; ;;i;; a..frt"ticn aga-inst E''''A'7;d A8 suppressing Ex'B1 to over come the aspect of tim't''tion- ti'tete seeking-the relief without the "l"gn, t"""nt a party' lheretore' his claim for support of evidence *lr declaration also hold,,o *....' e."o.al,,gty the point is answered in the negative." "[n the present case the Piairrtiffs though pieaded declaration of title reliet or ini"'ttion '-except the pleading ald oral ;d;;;s";;""tial evidence of PW. 1, Lhere is no-evidence on ricord to believe that the Plaintifts arc in possession- ol the suit land as on the date of the i".."afy, Pw- I himself admitted the presence of grante plant of gralite nt!n! is also proved by ""ir. over the suit land. rn" p.".*t the Defendants by proauc"ii'g e*'ei ana gf S document ln such circumstances, apparentl; tht po"se=sion is not lying with the- plaintiffs. Therefore plarnlifts o,.ght ,o have sought for recoverv of "= Yoiq--'.: |9c1ndlv' "ot 9 LNA,J 5.A.No.83 0f 2025 possession and in the given circumstances, the suit for declaration coupled with injunction does not arise,,

12. Learned counsel for Appellants would submit that the Trial Court as well as the flrst Appellate Court failed to comply with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to determine the appellants, inheritant rights, despite their father being the legal heir of the original owner. Thus, the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had not considered the burden of proof and ignored the presumption in favour of the appellants.

13. He u.ould further submit that the cause of action for hling the suit arose in the year 2011, when the appellants discovered fraudulent sale deed. Therefore, dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation is unsustainable, in view of Article Sg of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further contended that both the Courts have committed error'in upholding the validity of sale deed of defendant Nos. 1 to 4; Exs.B1 to 83, despite there being no evidence in proof of title of R.Mallaiah in respect of suit schedule property.

14. A perusal of the record would disclose that R.Mallaiah alienated the suit schedule property along with others in favour of defendant No.l uide a registered sale deed Doc.No.2382 /ZB, 10 LNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 dated 29.06.1978 and there after defendant No'1 sold the suit schedule property to defendant No-2 uide Doc'No'2OO3 l2OL1 , dated 14.O7.2011 and in turn defendant No'2 alienated the same in favour of defendant Nos'3 and 4 uide Doc'No'2729 of 2011, d.ated l2.Og.2OlL and the narnes of defendant Nos'3 and 4 were mutated in the revenue records as pattadars and possessors uide proc.No.Bl5248l 4212O11, dated 13'11'2011' It is aiso evicient from the record that the land was converted from agriculture to non-agricultural land proc.No.N/ 5O 3 I 2012, dated 17 .Ol .2012 and granite stone cutting machine u'as established in suit iand by duly taking permission and approvals from Gram Panchayat, Industry Department, AP TRANSCO, Factories Department and Pollution Control Board etc., which clearlv shows the possession of the defendants since the -Year 1978. 15. It is also evident that the plaintiff frled suit in the year 2Ol2 and after more than thirteen (13) years from the date of execution of sale deed the plaintiffs preferred the appeai and failed to explain the deiay for hling the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction belatedly. The trial Court as well as the frrst appellate court concurrently held that the suit is barred by 11 LNA,J S.A.No.83 of 2025 limitation and that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case by placing the evidence on record and further observed that the defendants denied the pleadings of plaintiff by producing Exs.Bl to B18 and thus, negatived the suit frted by the plaintiffs for declaration and perpetual injulction. 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellalts 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 100 C.P.C.

17. It is well settled principle supported by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that, in the Second Appeal hled under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere rvith the concurren t hndings on facts arrived at by tJre Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and 'l ) documentary evidence on record. 18. Further, in Gurd.ea Kaur a. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting on a Second Appea1 cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power l ) t 1z00z1 t Srp.e-e Court Cases 546 -\ 12 LNA,I S.A.No.83 of 2025 under Section 1O0 C.P.C. is very limited arrd it can- be exercised only where a substantial question of la*.*r is raised and fell for consideration.

19. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings of the trial Court as well as the hrst Appellate Court, this Court hnds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent hndings, under Section 1O0 C.P.C. Moreover, the ground raised by the Appellants are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law', arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.

20. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the sarne is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald closed. t I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR @& SECTI6X OFFICER I {

1. The I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, 2. The llAdditional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar 3. One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KNK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED.24t3t2025 JUDGMENT + DECRET SA No.83 of 2025 'tL ) t/1rt 1 o() I 1 ,lN ?[25 * f, + APPEAL IS DISMISSED, NO COSTS 6 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY;;;'^'I'" -THE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW SEC OND APPEAL N O: 830F 2025 Between: ' ' nf";1tr'it[;y*#iHi:*qi;,^l".";:' fiflflftfiq4i*;,;H -*;iis"",riT;::l " "' '6flfl llf;q[dffiiqi:fl i"#,,ffi xffi AND -I,ffi s,,$+##aYt#+:,r*:,,r,, 'nfiifr";ffl ..Appellants/ptaintiffs np'i#f.'"tl'#Hfl ' agins Pa *ner ffiif fflqli;h:EErfl{+}y"' 7. Yelagandula Veeresham, S/o Hanmaiah $yj,lt""Httf :s;p"...,.Rlif i;::-"' ^anmnagar Appeal under section 100 of CpC, against the Judgment and Decree made in A S No 44 0f 2022, Dared 23to9t2024, on the fire of the court of the I Additionar District Judge at Karimnagar, preferred against the Judgment and ...Respondents/Defendants I Oecree made in O S No 266 of 2012' dated 05/08/2019' on the file of the Court ,,' of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar' DECREE: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi' Advocate' for the Petitioners/APPellants' The Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That this Appeal be and is here by Dismissed at the state of admission' 2. That there is no order as to costs to this Appeal' SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge at Karimnagare' i. +ii; iiAd;iiionitlunior civiiJudge at Karimnasar 3. Two CD CoPies KNI(PSL l( 0 HIGH COURT DATED'.24t312025 DECREE SA.No.83 of 2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED, NO COSTS \