The High Court · 2025

IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECO ND APPEAL No. 185 of2025 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed questioning rhe judgment and decree, dated 22.11.2024, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court Hyderabad in A.s.No.275 or 2016, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 15.09.2016, passed by the XIX lunior Civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad in o.S.No.l(x2 of 2013 was oonfinned.

2. The appellant No. I herein is defendant in the suit (initially the suit was filed by plaintiffs against the sole defendant; as the_sole de,fendant expired, his legal heirs were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6). Respondent Nos.l and 2 are ptaintifls in the suit. Respondent Nos.l and 2 expired; as sucfi their legal heirs were brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5). For convenience, hereinafter the partics are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of rhe case, which led to the filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the ptaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injmction II l : I I \ 2 I.NA. J S.A No.l85 of 2025 against the defendant, resffaining him from trespassing or interfering with the suit schedule property' i'e', H'No'16-7 -731' Kattalgttda' near Kamal Talkies, Hyderabad, admeasuring 400 square yards' In the plaint' it is averred that the plaintiffs were the joint owners and possessors ol the property to an extent of 1,285 square yards comprising two buildings and a vacant land. Out of this, the plaintiffs sold a part of the property on 25.Ol.lgg4 to one Mr' Khader Mohiduddin and late Ahmed Mohiuddin' who jointly purchased only 885'0 square yards under a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs reserved their title and ownership rights in respect of the remaining land to an extent of 400 square yards The defendant on 05.05.2013, 10.05.2013, and l9'05'2013 along with others' tried to encroach upon the said 400 square yards and threatened the plaintifls' L{ence. the suit.

4. Defendant frled written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and averred that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material fact with regard to the pendcncy of suit filed by the plaintiffs vide O.S.No'3840 of 2004 on the file ol the I Additional Senior Civjl Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' l-he defendant is the 3 LNA, J S.A.No 185 oI2025 joint owner of the property bearing MCH No.16-7-737, admeasuring Eg5 square yards. The plaintifls with a malafide intention to grab the property have filed suit for eviction against tenant vide O.S.No.3g40 of 20O4 m collusion with tenant and that the defendant filed apptication to implead him as one of the defendant in the said suit and his mother also filed another application to implead herself in the said suit though there is no cause of action for plaintiffs to file the present suit and that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. Therefore, the question of defendant threatening the plaintiffs does arise and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parries, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? t I t ii) If so to what relieJ?

6. During the course of trial, plaintifl No. I hersel[ was examined as PWI and Exs.AI to ,{5 were marked and K.Shivanarayana was examined 4 LNA, J S /l.No-185 o12025 as PW2 and Exs.A6 to A10 were marked. On behalf of defendant, he himself got examined as DWI and Exs.Bl to 84 were rnarked

7. After futl-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, with costs.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- (i) The defendant himself during his cross-examination stated that he has notfiled any documents to show that he is in posse.ssion of suit schedule property and he also not having any document to show thot they are the owners of property admeasuring 400 Sq. yards. The Plaintffi have fled Exs A- I to show that he has purchased the property to an extent oJ' 1285 sq. yards from syndicate bank. They also /iled I:x ,1-2 to show they have sold an extent of885 square y,arcls to the defendant and retained remaining 400 square vords. Tlte plaintiff to show that he is in possession of suir schedule property has Jiled Exs.A-8 which is the propertv tar paynent receipt dated 03.06.2013, Ex.A-9 is the original property tax payment receipt dated 03.11.2011 Ex A- 10 ;s the Payment history ofpropergt tax. The perusal of thc d<tatment shows the payment of tax for the years 2010, 2013 and 2014. Exs.A-8 to A-10 are the property tax 5 LNA. J S.A.No.t85 of2025 payment details shows that the plaintilf b paying tat with regard to H.No. l6-7-737. The plainti/f by way of Exs.A-t , A-8 to A-10 has shown that they are in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. (ii) The defenfunt is claiming that he is the owner of 885 Sq. yards and also stating his mother is the owner of 400 Sq. yards. But defendant has not filed any document to show that his mother is absolute owner and possessor of 400 Sq.yards. There is no dispute with regard to 885 Sq. yards. Both prties are claiming ownership over the present suit schedule property. The present suit is filed for grant of perpetual injunction and this Court has to see only that the plaintilf is in possession of suit schedule property. The defendant has not filed any document to show that he is right over the suit schedule property. The plaintifis by way of Ex.Al and A.8 to A.l0 shown they are in possession of the suit schedule property.

9. By observing as hereinabove, the trial Court opined that there is proper and sufiicient evidence in support of the plaintiffs contentions and that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on behall of the defendant either to disprove the contentions of the plaintiffs or to prove the contentions of the defendant. i \ ''i i 6 LNA, J S.A.No.l85 of2025

10. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15'09'2016' the defendant preferred appeal in A'S'No'275 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City (livit Court, at Hyderabad' on appeal' the first Appellate court, being the final fact-finding cour! re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal' vide judgment and decree' dated 22'l l'2024' I l. The hrst Appellate Court in is judgment observed as hereunder:- On perusal of Ex'At, it is clear that the plaintilJs (, have pttrchased 1285 sq yards from the Syndicate Bank and as per Ex. A2, that is, sale deed in favour of appellants orlv ,98-i sq. yards are sold out of 1285 sq'yards' which indicate.; that balance land is with the possession of plointifl .s only- The plaintilfs have even examined Pw I btf-orL: tne trial court, who Jiled property tat receipts under E-r.s ,4,3 trr A. l0' which shows that the appellant b paying pr()pcrh) tax to the municipal in resPect of suit property' Tht h,t;ts uf tlaim of defendants before the trial court is onlt, lht' possession' that ts, conflicting in Ex' A2' that is' Lund o./ Faialunnisa Begum lt is seen thot the plaintilf in Iln' t'ross statetl that original deed was with the bank and by mistuk( it tt'as tvpetl in Ex'A2 Admittedly' the defendants ditl not filtt anv documentary proof or title deeds in respect I 7 LNA. J S.A.No.185 of2025 of suit property in the twme of his mother and admittedly, the IA filed by mother of the defendant in O.S No. 3948 of 2004 is dismissed. Merely on tlu basts of a wrong typographical error in the sde deed under Ex.A2, the defendant cannot claim any right or title over the said remaining area of400 sq. yards sittnted to the north side of the portion sold to them by the plaintffi and admittedly the suit property is the remaining property retained by plaintffi after alienating 885 sq. yards in favour of defendant from the documents filed under Exs.At to Al0 before the trial court. The possession of the ptainttffs ts established and defendants admixedly failed to establish any valid title documents or any docltments to show the alleged possesston ofhis mother from the suit property.

12. I{eard Mr. K.Vrjaya Bhasker Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellants. Perused the entire material available on record

13. Leamed counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court, on improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the suit and the first appellate Court, without appreciating the entire material placed on recor4 has dismissed the suit without proper reasons. He further submitted that the evidence of DW I was t I , i i I I I I I I I I I I I , i l :T f I 8 LNA, J S.A.No.185 of2025 not properly appreciated and therefore' the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

14.Aperusaloltherecordwoulddisclosethat,exceptfilinga plaint copy olO.S.No-3840 of2004, copy ofthe evidence afiidavit of plaintiff No.l, cross-examination of plaintiff No'l' and implead petition filed by the appellants/defendants' no other documents are placed on record by the appellants to prove their ownership' A perusal of the impugned order of the first appellate Court would also disclose that the appettate Court framed three points for consideration and has re-appreciated the entire evidence as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court and has come to conclusions that the plaintifls proved their ownership and possessiorl whereas the appellantside f-cndants failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property' Therefore' the contention of the appellants/de f-endants that the judgment passed by the first appellate Court is not a reasoned order is untenable and therefore' it does not require any intcrlerencc by this Court 9 LNA. J 5.A.No.165 oI2025

15. In considered opinion of this Cour! leamed counsel for the appellant has 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 naftrre and do not qualif! as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.p.C.

16. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the I{on'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentar5r evidence on record.

17. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kak/, the Apex Court held that the High 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 falts for I I considcration ' (2007) I Supreme Court Cases 5.6 \ t T t0 LNA. J S.A.No.l85 of2025

18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the frndings recorded by the trial Court as well as first Appellate Cour! this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings' under Section 100 C'P'C' Moreover' the grounds 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' |g.Hence.theSecondAppeallailsandthesameisaccordingly dismissed at the stage of admission' No costs'

20. Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed. To, SdI REE RAMAI,IURTHY TYREGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER , I ' '1. TheCourtof the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. TheCourtoftheXlX JuniorCivil Judge, CityCivil Courtat Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI V. SEETHARAMA AVADHAN|, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.185 of 2025 ) --' --1_-' : :::"' - I :'1''t' ,"':' ;i'':':' ,::,' 2 5 sEP 20fr i.. / 't J,:, \i .a_ I ,:,| --" DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION 6 ) 11 \\