The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that ln the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petiiion, the High court may be pleased to grrni int"ri, injunction reiraining the respondent to alienate or create any third i"?v i"t"r".t over the suil schedile agriculture lan-ds in Sy Nos 62 admeasuring Ac. 14-22 guntas situated in the Limils of leeja village and Mandal' Jogulamba CaOwaf disirict pending disposal of the Second appeal' Counsel for the Appellants : SRI GUJJARI NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : CH LAXMI NARAYANA The Court delivered the following: Judgment t a THE HON'BLE 5 I ]USTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL sEco ND APPEAL No. 106 ()F 2023 JUDGMENT: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2t'I2.2022 passed in A.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, wherein and whereby the decree and judgment dated 0t.4.20t9 passed tn O.S.No.107 of 2013 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants herein was confirmed. 2 FaGs, in brief, are tirat. the father of the apoellants hereir-i fileo the suit o.s"l'io.lD7 0f 2013 0n tne file of the court of the senioi- Civri Judge, Gadwai, for deciaration that he is the owner ani possessor.of the suit schedule land in sy.No.62 situafled in the li:nits of Ieeja village and Mandal to an extent sf Ac.t4-22 guntas by way of declaring the Will dated 6/68 dated 24.4.1968 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and he also soltght for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. Subsequent to the filing of the suit the father of the appellants came on record as legai representatives of the original plaintiff. \ 2 \. 3 The respondent contested the suit' Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed two issues and three additional issues for trial viz., Issue Nos .1 and 2:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment ovei'the suit land as on the date of the suit?

2.Whethertheplaintiffisentitledforthereliefofperpetualinjunction as sought for? Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner and possessor of the suit lands?

2. Whether the Will Deed No.6/1968 dated 24'4'1968 is not binding on the plaintiff as it is nuil and void?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4 ln support of their case, the appellants 1 and 2 got examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs'A-l to A'16' On the other hand, the respondent besides examining himself as D'W'1' also got examined three more witnesses as D'Ws'2 to 4 and got marked EXs.B.1 to 8.25. 5 The trial court after examining the entire material in the form of above evidence let in, held on Additionai Issue Nos.1 and 2 that Ex.B.1 shows that the father of the respondent got sult schedule property from the father of the original plaintiff and the name of the respondent / defendant was mutated in the year 1997 and that the - respondent / defendant is in possession of the schedule land and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right, title and possession over the suit schedule land. On the other hand, the respondent / defendant proved execution of Will and his right, title and possession over the suit property. on issue Nos.1 and 2 the learned trial Court held that P.W.1 deposed that he has not filed any document to show that during the lifetime of his father and after death of his father he is enjoying the land in Sy'No'62' The plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schecjule property as such the plaintiff is not entitted perpetual iniunction againsi the respondent / defendant. r 6 So far as the Additional Issue No'3 is concerned, the trial court held that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2007, whereas the mutation was effected n the revenue records in the year 1993- 94, hence the suit is barred by limitation. 7 Accordingly the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 01.4.2019. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred A.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the court of the Principal District I , I I l I l Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal. The learned first appellate Judge' by re- appreciating the entire evidence as well as the judgment of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022. Hence the present second appeal' 8 This Court, vide proceedings daled 27 '3'2023 framed the following substantial question of law:

1. Whether the trial court and 1't appellate couft are justified in holdingthatthesuitfiledbytheplaintiffisbarredbylimitaticnand whether the courts below committed wrong in appreciating Article 58 of Limitation Act instead of Article 64?

2. Whether the trial Cout ano 1't appellate Colrrt are wrong in computing the period for the purpose of limitaticn? 3'WhethertheCourtsbelowcorrectlyappreciatedtheContentionof the plaintiff about the proof of Wil! by defendant?

4. Whether the mutation of the property under Exs'B'S, B'10 and B'23 was correct without production of death certiflcate of testators? 9 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants )nd the learned counsel for the resPondent' 10 The record does not show that the appellants were in prior possession of the schedule land' Even it is the admission of P'W'1 that he has not filed any document to show that during the lifetime of his father and after the death of his father they are enjoying the propety in Sy.No.62. So, appellants did not prove their right, title andpriorpossessionoverthesuitpropefi.Sincetheyarenotin a -/ /, ) possession of the land, granting relief of injunction does not arise. The defendant proved the execution of Ex.B.l Will as well as his right, title and possession over the property through the voluminous documentary evidence i.e. EXs.B.1 to 8.25. As per Ex.B.l dated

24.4.1968, Kurva Maidakal i.e. father of the defendant and father of the plaintiffs got Will from Kurva Eedanna wherein it was specifically mentioned that land in Sy.No.1002 to an extent of Ac.9-04 gts was given to the father of the defendants and the land in Sy.No.62lAA to an extent of Ac.l4-22 gts was given to the father of the defendant. Ex.B.l was a 50 years old document. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Ac',, 7872 postulates that where any document, purporting or proved to be thifi years old, is pi'oduced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, tfre Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Moreover, there !s no much dispute with regard to the execution of Ex.B.1. So Ex.B.1 shall be presumed to be true and valid document. I \'1.\ - \ t; 11 With regard to the limitation, the contention of the appellants is that the Courts below applied Article 58 instead of Article 65 in computing the limitation. As seen from the record' Ex'B'l dated 24.4.lg68was amply proved by the defendant by examining D'Ws'1 to 4. Exs.A.4 and A.5 copy of the pahani for the year 1980-81 and 1985-86 show that the father of the deceased plaintiff as pattedar but it also shows that the father of the defendant i respondent as possessor as per Will, which is a 50 years old document' Pertinently, the appellants admitted execution of Ex'B'1 Will by the father of the deceased first plaintiff. Ex.B.2 ROR proceedings dated O7.8.lgg7 shows that the respondent / defendant got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of the sub;ect property' t2 Articie 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a three-year limitationperiodforanySuitseekinga.declaration.rviththetime starting to run from the date the right to sue first accrues' The cause of action, or the right to sue, arises when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to a plaintiffs right, such as a denial of their title to property. 13 Whereas Article 65 of the Llmitation Act sets a l2-year l[r]ttation period for filing a suit for the possession of immovable 7 property or any interest therein, based on title. The clock for this 7Z-year period starts running from the moment the defendant,s possession of the property becomes "adverse to the plaintiff'. After these 12 years, if a suit is not flled, the original owner,s right to recover the property is iost, and the person in adverse possession can acquire title to the property by prescription. 14 In the instant case, the defendant perfected his title based on Ex.B.1, which the plaintiffs failed to disprove or to take any contra view. From the evidence available on record, it is also to be seen that the plaintiffs/appellants were not in prior possession of the ( property at any time. So in that back drop of factual scenario, as rightly applied by the Courts below, Article 58 of the Limitation Act would only be applied but not Afticle 65. So the stuit is also not within the limitation. i5 In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that this second appeal is devoid of any merit as no question of law much less any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. All the factual aspects were correctly addressed by both the Courts below and this Court sitting under Section 100 CPC does not appreciate the factual aspects once again. 8 Hence the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed' confirming the judgment and decree dated 21'12'2022 passed by the leaned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal in A'S'No'19 of 2019, No order as costs' 16 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall also stand dismissed. Sd,. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge' Joguldmba Gadwal z. ft," Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal i o""iCi" SnreU.r.rn"nrUnveEru KUMAR' Advocate IOPUCI ; il;;; i; aHi cH r-nxrt'rr NARAYANA' Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ADI(/PSi- , ::r' ,i,,, ! HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE SA.No.106 of 2023 2 DRAFTS /..., .:i; '\ii' ..i. i I SEP 2tr25 '.i. {: .\. ^ ..' DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY HE TWENry SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL SECOND APPEA LNO i 106 0F 2023 Between:

1. Kurva Ukkanna, S/o. Eadanna, (died) per L.Rs, 2. Kurva Venkatramulu, Sio. Late Ukkanna, 59 years, 3- Kurva Veeranna, S/o. Late Ukkanna, 54 years, 4. Kurva Girjaswamulu, Sio. Late Ukkanna,4'1 years, 5. Kurva Gopal, S/o. Late Ukkanna, 38.years, Sl. No.2 to 5 are Occ. Agriculture, R/o. leeja Village, and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District . 6. Smt. K. Manikyamml.W{o. K. anjaneyulu, 43 years, (D/o Late Occ AgricultureR/o. Chintalakunta village, Gattl Mandat, Jogul ... District. K. Ukkanna), amba Gadwal ...Appellants *ra. ':: !t rva Venkatesh, S/o. Maldakal, above Age.39 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. a Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Diatrict ^_ -::4pp9al under section.100 of C.P C against the Judgm 21-12*2022 made in A.S. No.19 of 2019 on the fite of t6e Distridt and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal preferred and Decree passed in O.S.NO.107 of 2013 dateij 01-04-2 Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. t ...Respondent ent 'and Decree Dated Court of the Principal against the Judgment 01 9 on the file of the . This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and ihe material pipers in the'iase and.upon. hearing the arguments of sRl GUJJARI NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and of cH LAXMr NARAYANA, Advocate for the Respondent- .,::, .tr&,& This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That the Second appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the iudgment anddecreedated2l-12.2022passedbythePrincipalDistrictJudge' Jogulamba Gadwal in A.S-No 19 of 2019;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' Sd/- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal 3. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2 210812025 DECREE SA.No.106 of 2023 I DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 1 \K \