The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDE NTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Dspense with certified copy of the Judgement and Decree Dt.02-12-2024 in OS No.08/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affirlavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be p{,eased to suspend the Judgement and Decree Ot.02-12-2024 passed in AS No.90/2022 . by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, confirming the Judgement and Decree Dt.15-11-2022 passed in os No.08/20'14, on the file of Horble senior civil Judge, Kamareddy. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. M.V.RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT !1q!ftFd,!.tF.tr7 HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL NO.146 OF 2025 IUDGMENT: Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2024 in A.S.No.9O of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 in OS.NoB of 2074 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, the present Second Appeal is filed

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.'l and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. 'fhe facts of thecase in brief, which lecl to filing of tlre Present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff No.1 fited a suit irr O.S.No.S of 2014 on tl-re file of Senior Civil |udge, Karnareddy, for cleclarration of title and perpetual injunction contending that the plaintiif No. I was the owner and possessor of the open plot aclmcasuritrg 117.7 square yards ltt Sy.No.96/2 situated at Lingapur Granra Panchavat, Kamare<Idy (hereinafter referred to as'suit plot') having prurchased the same from one Chikoti Rajesham through a registerecl sale clcecl t,idc clocument No.2141/2001 datect 15.06.2001 for .r strlc 2 consideration of Rs.12,000/-; that the vendor of the plaintiff No'1 purchased the suit plot from Linga Veerabhanr zridr: document No.2704/1985 dated 70.07.1985; that said l,irrga Veerasham purchased the suit plot from the defendant No.2-Kasarla Ramulu through a registered sale deed oide doctrrrrent No.1722/1,984 dated

19.06.1984 and the defendant No.2 is the father of defendant No'1; that ptaintiff No.1 came to know that defendant No.2 has created and fabricatecl a gift settlement deed in favour of the defenciant No.1 with an intention to grab the suit plof that defendants came to the suit plot orr 22.07.2014 and tried to remove the bounciary stones ancl the ptaintiffs resistecl them with the help of neighbour:s. Hence, the suit.

4. Durirrl; thc pre1lt{en6y of the suit, plaintiff No.l dicd arrtl his leuaI represcrltativcs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record.

5. Defe'nrlarrt No.t filed written statement denying the avermetrts nraclc in thc plairrt and further averred that the suit plot is the part of anccstral L]ropcrty of thc' defendant No.2 and the same was mtrde' irrto house sik' l.rlots; that out of love and affection, defendant No'2 t'xt'cuted a giit deed dated 13.12.2011 in favour of dcfenclant No'l in resfrect of gruthcrtt sicle of half portion of open ptot No.8 ancl sincc 3 then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit plot and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and averued that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit plot by virtue of gift deed clated 13.12.2011 executed by th. defendant No.2; that tl're suit is barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the suit- 7 Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court frameti following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner ancl possessor of suit plot? 2\ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of pcrl.rctual injunction ? 3) To r+,hat relief ? On 24.08.2019 after lrearing ttte parties, the follou'ing aclditional issues were framed. 1) Whether the defendant no.2 executed registered salc deecl Doc.No.1722/1984 dated 19.M.1984 in favour of Linga Veerasham who in turn sold the same to plaintiff's vettdor 4 Chekoti Rajesham s/o. Balaiah aide registered sale deed Doc.No.2704l1985 dated 10.07.1985 ? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as owner of the suit schedule land ? 3) Whethel the defendant No.2 executed the gift deed validly in favour of the defendant No.1 during the subsisting of the registered sale deed and the said gift deed Doc.No.7229/ 2011 dated 72.12.2011 validly confer the title on the defendant No.2 ?

8. During the triat, on behalf of plaintiffs, pws.1 to 3 were examined, Ex.Al to .{5 wr,re marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were rnarkecl ancl Ex.81 to 86 were marked.

9. The trial Court. or.i duc' consideration of oral and documentarl, evidence rr rrcl tltt conte.tions of both the parties, t,lrt judgment dated

15.11.2022 clecrcetl the suit with the following observations: " 'fhc clocunrcntal'v evidence of the plaintiffs clearly establisheil that the tlefendant No.2 executed registered sale deecl Doc.No.172Z/1984 t{atcd 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veeresh.rnr. lrx. A2-rcgs itered sale deed clearly established that thr-r said [-inr1a Veeresham sold the suit sc(edule plot to Chekoti Rajeslraur on 10.07.1985; the plaintiff No.1 purchasecl tlre sarrrc on 14.05.2001 z,irlc Doc.No.2141/2C/|1 under Ex.Al. The tlctc'ntlant No.2 failecl to estabtish that he did not execute Ex.A3, thc suit schetlule prolrerty is open plot, there is no house nuurbcr, clectricitt,cor.:nection and other records, whcn a ProPert)'is o 1-11.11 plot relevant docurrrents as to title or sale clcetls rn thc prescnt casc llxs.Al to 43 docunrents are the sale 5 deecls, therefore the title of the plaintiffs is proved;. the defendants failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs; accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiffs holding that the plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are owners. The defendant No.1 claiming that Exs.B1 dated 72.12.2011. she became owner of the half portion of plot No.8, an extent of 92 sq.yards. Exs.Al to A3 documents are executed much prior to Ex.B1 gift deed. In view of the findings in issue Nos.l and 2, the plaintiffs are held as owners of the suit schedule plot, once there is a registered document in favour of the plaintiff during the subsistence of the register docu ments Ex.B1-gift deed not confers any title on the clefendant No.1. Gift of a immovable property is covered by Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, according to which, a donor of a property has to be the owner of the property as on the date of execution of gift deed, there must be valid acceptance of the gift. ln the present cas€, the donor is father, done is daughter. The plaintiffs are claiming title by virtue of sale deed from the clonor anc{ they established their ownership, there is no document to show possession of deferxCant no.1, therefore the clefenclant No.2 is not having right to execute Ex.B1 in favour of tlefendant no.1, accordingly it will not confer any titlc orr thc tlefendant No.l. -l-he plaintiffs in ttre present case are found to be owners of the suit schedule p{ot, in view of the defence of the clefcnclants, they claimed title over the suit rheclule propcrty, as such, tl-rere is interfere to the possession of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property by the defendants, as such, the plairrtiffs are entitled for the relief of PerPetual injunction to protect their possession from intederence the t1c, fe rrcl a n ts - hr view of my findings in issue No.1 and 2 ancl additional issue No.1 to 3, the plaintilfs are declared as owners of the suit schedule plot the defendants failed to prove their case. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of perpetuaI irriutrction." 6

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.i1.2022, the defendant No.1 preferred the appeal in A.S.No.90 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy (first Appellate Court). 1L. The first Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, re- appreciated the entire evidence and the material available on record and dismissed the appeal r;idc judgment dated 02.12.2024 with the following observatiorrs "There is serious dispute by defendants in respect of boundaries of suit plot mentionecl in plaint. Boundaries mentioned in Exs.Al to ,A3 and plaint are tallying with each other. Because of afflux of time, there is some change in resPect of bouuclaries excel)t on Western side, ra,hich is 12 feet road, in respect of n,l-rich, P.W,1 gave explanation in his evidence. Major p611i611 o[ suit plot is being claimed by defendant No.l as irer properfy. 11 those circurnstances, naturally thcre rvill bc certairr variation in respect of boundaries. The plel{ing5 antl evic{ence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 categoricallv shon, th.rt dcfendantNo.l rs claiming 06 square yards in Sy.No.96/2 o[ Lingapoor village, forming part of suit plot of plaintitf no. t. As alreadv stated, Ux.B1 is a sham and nonrinal tlocun.rcut. that apart, Ex.t\3 is 30 years old document under r.r,[rich rlefendant no.2 sold out suit plot to Linga Vcercshanr rvav Lr.rck on 19.06.1984. Defendant No.2 has no authority to execute tix.81 in respect of the same plot, which was alrear{r' soltl bv l.rim ou 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veerashnnr. The Plaintiff No.l is tht atrsolute owner and possessor of suit plot by virtue of Exs.Al to A3 and after his death, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 Lrec.rnte the on.uers and possessors of suit plot. I also hoki that Ex.lli is a shar.n and nomillal document brought into cxist('rrcc b_r, tlefentlaut Nos.l anr-l 2 in collusion with earch other to eicft'at tirc te.gal rights of plaintiff No.1. ... ----j 7 The fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 created Ex.Bl.gift deed and claiming the suit plot speaks volumes about the interference caused by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Unless defendants and their men are restrained by way of perpetual injunction, it will be clifficult for plaintiffs to protect their lawful possession over suit plot. I hotd that plaintiffs are entitlect for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Court has carefully perused the iudgment and decree under appeal. Though defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate appeals, the grouncls taken by them are one and the same, whicl-r are mentioned, in brief, in par4 No.12 of this judgment. All the grounds taken by defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been dealt with on point Nos.1 and 2 and held them to be untenablc. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record, both oral and clocumentary, in proper perspective and reached correct conclusion and rightly decreed th€ suit."

12. Aggrieved by the iudgment and decree dated 02.12.2024 i^ A.S.No.90 of 2022, the prresent Appeal is filed.

13. Heard Sri M.V.Rai Kunrar Gabriel, learned counsel appearing for appellant. I'eruseci the' recorcl.

14. Learne'cl cou nsel for appellant had contended that the judgment ancl decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the first Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence; that the first Appetlate Court anrl trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and Possessor of the suit plot by virtue of registerecl gift scttlcmerrt deed under Ex.Bl; that first 8 Appellate Court as well as the trial Court conle to erroneous conclusion that Exs.A1 to A3 were executed much prior to Ex'B1-gift deed and that Ex.B1 will not confer any title antl that defendants failed to prove their case; that the first Appetlate Court and trial Court erroneously passed the judgment and decret: under the appeal on presumptions. assumptions without appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record by the defendants and therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal'

15. Perusal of the record would c-lisclose that thc trial Court as well as first Appellate Court specificallv observed ttrat plaintiff No'1 is the absolute owner and Possessor 6'f 5sit plot by virtr-te of Exs'A1 to A3- registered sale deeds aucl a[tt'r tlcath t.,[ ptaintiti No'1' plaintiff Nos'2 to 4 became the owners atlcl possessors oi the same; that Ex'B1 is a sham and nominal documetlt [-rrought into existr:uce by defendants in collusion with each otirer; that Exs'Al to Al are executed much prior to Ex.B1-gift cleecl arrtl tirat trx'A3 is 30 years old document under which defenclant No.2 sotcl out tht' suit plot to Linga Veereshamwaybackon19.06.t984anc1tlrercfore,defendantNo.2 has no authority to executc Ex't]1 irr resPect o[ the same plot' which was alreacly sotcl b1' him u nclc'r Lix A3 f h"refolc' the trial Court F*-*-t:t ., 9 decreed the suit and the same was upheld by the first appellate Court. 1,6. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appetlant/clefendant No.1 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 tl-re substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C

17. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Secorrd Appeal filecl under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the Courts bclow, which arc based on proPer appreciation of the oral and documentarrv evicletlce on record.

18. Further, in Gtnlczt Kaur u. Kaki1, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Seconcl Appeal canrlot examirre the evidence once again as a thirci trial Court er ncl the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limitecl trnd it can be exercised only wtrere a substantial question of law is raisecl and fett for consideration. t (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 l0

19. Having considered the entire material availablc orr record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, ut'tder Section 100 C.P.C' Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant arc factual in nature and no question of Iaw much less a substantial quesLion of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal

20. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the satrre is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applicatiorrs, ii arry, slr.rlI stand closed //TRUE COPY// sd/ -/( /\\l\ SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER The Principal District Judge, Kamareddy District \ The Senior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy. lne CC to Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Gopies \, To, I 2 3 4 Ks/kam W HIGH COURT DATED:23lOGl2O25 '(' \ j 'i ,,| S IAI (. rl; r:' t? i? \ ? g,NI Mffi I 1)€S n 1r'.'' \; JUDGMENT S.A.No.146 ol2O25 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WTHOUT COSTS. t/\ ,1)1/