The High Court · 2025

III Additional District Judge at Gadwal confirming the judgment dated 26.O6.2O15 passed in O.S.No.41 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2. The parties are heieinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. Heard Sri Godugu Mallesham, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri NS Arjun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

4. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, instituted OS No.41 of 2006, on the frle of t}le learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal seeking a declaration of title and a consequential a decree of permanent injunction. They asserted that they are the pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule lands situated at Pullur Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, bearing survey Nos.430/AAl, 433/AAl and 430/AA4, admeasuring Ac.l-18 Gts., Ac.1-22 Gts., and Ac.1-18 Gts., respectively. They contended 2 tJ at they are close relatives, plaintiff No.2 being tl.e wife of the brother of plaintiff No. 1. According to them, the schedule properties are their ancestral properties, in which both plaintiffs are co-owners and have been in peaceful, continuous possession and enjo5rment. They relied upon certified copies of pahanies for the years 1999 to 2O06, along with title deeds and pattadar passbooks, to demonstrate their possession over the suit lands. (a) The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants have no manner of right or interest oter the suit property. However, acting at the instigation of certain villagers, the defendants began creating disturbances. On 03.06.2006, while the plaintiffs were engaged in agricultural operations, the defendants, along with their supporters, allegedly trespassed into the suit lands and attempted to dispossess them. The plaintiffs' relatives intervened, whereupon the defendants left after issuing threats to dispossess the plaintiffs and destroy tJreir crops. (b) The defendants, in their written statement, denied the plaintiffs' claims as false and baseless. They contended tJ:at the a plaintiffs' ancestors had alienated the suit properties long ago and that the plaintiffs have neither title nor possession. Defendant Nos. I and 2 claimed to be the absolute owners and possessors of the suit lands from the dates of their respective purchases, contending that a 3 the alleged incident of interference on 09.06.2006 is fictitious. Defendant No.l claimed to have purchased land in survey No.430/B/Paiki, admeasuring Ac.2-30 Gts., under a registered sale deed bearing document No.544 of 1990 dated L2.o4.199o, executed by one K.udaya Bhaskar Rao for valid consideration of Rs.15,o00/-. He approached the Mandal Revenue ofhcer seeking mutation of his name by submitting the said sale deed and link documents on

02.03.2006. upon enquiry in file No.A/328 /2006, the MRo issued proceedings dated 05.06.2006 noting that the land in survey No.430/AA, admeasuring Ac.5-32 gts., had originally stood in the name of the plaintiffs'ancestors, namely Kurva Naganna and Kurva Karrenna, as per revenue records for 198$-86 and 1989-90. After their demise, their successors sold Ac.2-2O Gts., to one M.Pakeeraiah Goud under Document No.1413 of 1981, who subsequently sold it to Udaya Bhaskar, the vendor of defendant No.l. The MRo observed that defendant No.l has been in continubus poSsession and that the plaintiffs'names continued in revenue records only because defendant No.l had not sought I mutation earlier. (c) The defendants further contended that after obtaining an ex-parte injunction, the plaintiffs approached the MRo and filed objections, which according to the defendants, reveals their malaJid.e 4 k intent to grab the defendants' property' They also contended t.Lat the boundaries mentioned in the plaint are incorrect' Defendant No.2statedthathe,alongwithoneSmt.o.Pushpavathi,aSpartners of Kranthi Estates, Kurnool, purchased land in survey No'430/B (Ac.O-13 Gts') and survey No'433 lB (Ac'6-O7 Gts') under document No.2831 of 1985 dated 03'12'1985 from its owner L'Sa$ranarayana Murthy. Satyanarayana Murthy had purchased the said land under document No.314 of 1984 d'ated' 27'02'1984 from the original pattadars belonging to Kurva famity' Satyanarayana Murthy had also purchased land in survey No'432 (Ac'2- 1O Gts') under document No.313 of 1984' Defendant No'2 further contended that some partners of Kranthi Estates retired under a retirement deed dated O2.O4.20O4, conferring full ownership rights upon defendant No.2 and Smt.Pushpavathi' They subsequently registered the firm on05.0s.2005beforetheRegistrarofFirms,Hyderabad.on 20.0L.2006, they filed an application under Section 6-4 before the MRO. After due enquiry, the MRO, vide proceedings in File No.Al328l2OO6 dated 2g.O3 '2006, ordered mutation in their favour' conlirming their continuous possession and issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds' The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' own pahanies describe the land as "padava" (fallow) and contend that the plaintiffs manipulated revenue records behind the defendants' back. They alleged suppression of material facts and a 5 sought dismissal of the suit in limine. They denied plaintiffs, title, asserted their own ownership and possession and further contended that the suit is barred by limitation and suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title over the suit schedule property? (ii) To what relieP 6. The plaintiffs examined PWs. I to 3 and produced Exs.Al to Al7. PW.l was plaintiff No.l. The defendants examined DWs.l to 3 and produced Exs.Bl to B22. 7 . Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs as the pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule lands and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjo5rment. a

8. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S. No.18 of 2O15. The learned III Additional District Judge, Gadwal, by judgment dated 08.O3.2O 19, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's-dccree, reiterating the plaintiffs'title and possession and 6 permanently injuncting t.l.e defendants and their agents from interference.

9. Aggrieved by the findings of the appellate Court in AS No.18 of 2015, the appellants herein, who are the defendants in os No.41 of 20o6 and appellants in AS No.18 of 2015, preferred tJre present second appeal mainly contending that the judgments of both the courts are contrary to evidence and law, as they failed to identify the suit land, misconstrued boundaries and survey ' numbers and did not examine exhibits. The plaintiffs produced no title deed, no proof of inheritance and relied on vague pleadings, yet the courts wrongly shifted the burden of proof and decreed the suit based on alleged weaknesses of the defendant. The courts ignored the clear chain of registered conveyarlces under Ex.B2 (of the year 1981), Ex.BS & E}6 (of the year 1982+-s5) and Ex.Bl (of the year t 1990) which conclusively vest title in the appellant. Ex.Al and Ex.A2 lack the mandatory RDo signature and are invalid and revenue entries were wrongly treated as conferring title. The Courts also erred in treating Sy.No.430-B and sy.No.43O-AA as different though they are the same. The appellate judgment is cryptic and relies on misleading evidence of pw-3. Hence, the decrees are unsustainable and liabte to be set aside. 7 10- During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner, filed IA No.3 of 2022 seeking to file additional documents on record mainly contending that the appellant is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.2-2o Gts., in sy.No.4solB/patki under a registered sale deed and valid mutation, while the respondents have no title over this land and falsely relied on unidentiliable boundaries of different survey numbers. They also suppressed the fact that they had already sold their property through registered sale deeds dated 15-02-2006 and 21-02-2006, rendering the suit not maintainable and amounting to fraud. These sale deeds, now sought as additional evidence, were not earlier within the appellant's knowledge and must be received under order XLI Rule 2T cpc. The trial Court as well as the appellate court have wrongly shifted the burden of proof and ignored the Appellant's registered chain of title, causing serious prejudice

11. The learned counsel for the appeflant reried upon the decisions rendered in Gurunath Manohar pavaskar and others vs.Nagesh siddappa Navalgund and others r, yashoda (Arias sodhanf vs. Sukhwinder singh and others2andJagdish prasad Patel (Deadf through legal representatives and another ! I '(2OO7l 13 Supreme Court Cases 565 ,2022 SlfC Online SC t2O8 8 Vs.Shivnath and otherss contending that civil property disputes, especially in second appeals, the plaintiff must succeed on tJ.e strength of their own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case and that the revenue entries or untested evidence do not constitute conclusive proof of ownership. Courts stress that title must be proved through reliable, primary documents and mandatory or permanent injunctions should not be granted without clear proof of ownership. Further, litigants must approach the Court with full disclosure and clean hands, as suppression of earlier proceedings or taking inconsistent positions may itself lead to dismissal, since fraudulent or misleading conduct vitiates equitable relief. The courts also reiterate that the power to admit additional evidence in appeal (Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, only when necessary for a just decision. Overall, the combined principle is that integrity of litigation, quality of evidence and proper discharge of the burden of proof are essential and relief will be denied where these foundational requirements are not met. a

12. The respondents herein, who are t.l.e plaintiffs in the suit and respondents in the first appeal, opposed the present appeal mainly contending that they were decreed title and perpetual '(2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82 9 injunction over lands in Sy.Nos.430/AA1, 433/AA1 and 43O/AA4, supported by clear oral and documentary evidence including official testimony and Ex.Cl, while the appellants' claim relates only to different lands in Sy.Nos.43O/B and 433/8. Both Courts concurrently found ownership and possession in favour of the respondents and such concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal unless shown to be perverse, as settled in Dagadabai Vs. Abbasa. A Second Appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, which the appellants have failed to demonstrate in view of the principles laid down in Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bis and Gumdev Kaur Vs. IGki6. No interim order, including stay, can be granted until such a substantial question is formulated, as held in Raghavendra Swarny Mutt v. Uttaradi MuttT moreover, a decree for perpetual injunction is not stayable, being enforceable only upon violation under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, as clarilied in Pokala Polaiah Vs. Pokala Arnrlaiah s . The appellants' application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 is premature and must be considered only at the hearing of the appeal, per Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryaua e and Union of Indftr Vs. I _-, .z:: . 1i -,. $i,...:';" , o(zotzy 13 scc 7os '(2016) 10 SCC 315 ,(2OO7l 1 SCC 546 ,(20t6l 11 SCC 235 .1998 (LY?(fr 2sr "(2OL7l4 SCC 760 ;l i I i 10 Ibrahimuddinlo. In view of the unimpeached concurrent findings and absence of any substantial question of law, the Second Appeal and interlocutory applications are unsustainable. (a) The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to circumvent the finality of judicial determinations. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after the decree and judgment dated 26.06.2015 in O.S. No.18 of 2015 and the dismissal of the subsequent appeal in A.S. No.18 of 2015 on O8.O3.2O19, the appellant, instead of accepting the conclusiveness of the said adjudication, sought to revive the very same issues by instituting fresh proceedings. During the pendency of the present second appeal, the appellant instituted O.S.No.7 of 2022 before the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal District, once again in relation to the s€une propertSr that had already been the subject matter of earlier suits. However, on an application filed by the respondents in I.A.No.196 of 2022 under OrderVII Rule 11 CPC, the trial Court, by order dated 10.11.2022, t rejected the said suit at the threshold. The trial Court categorically t.\tfr.t the rights and issues involved in O.S. No.41 of 2O06 and O.S. No.7 of 2022 were one and the same and that the appellpnt -(20t2l8 SCC 148 L" J. 7L was attempting to reopen matters which had already been conclusively adjudicated. The Court recorded a clear frnding that the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and, constructive res judicata and that permitting such litigation would amount to allowing the appellant to reJitigate settled issues merely by instituting successive suits. (b) Notwithstanding this categorical rejection, the appellant again pursued the matter by filing A.S.No.329 of 2023 before this Court, only to later withdraw the same. The repeated liling of proceedings concerning the same property i.e. first by instituting O.S.No.7 of 2022 after losing in the earlier rounds of litigation and then by filing an appea-l only to abandon itclearly reveals a pattern of conduct aimed at prolonging the dispute and keeping the litigation alive by untenable and repetitive filings. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the respondents have prayed to dismiss the present second dppeal confirming the well-considered findings of the trial Court and first appellate Court.

13. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material on record, including the impugned judgments. A perusal of the trial Courtt findings demonstrates that the plaintiffs successfully established both title and possession over the suit schedule properties. The trial Court a 72 relied upon cogent and.credible evidence, including the title deeds (Exs.Al and A11) proving ownership, pattadar passbooks (Exs.A2 and A12) confirming their status as pattadars and possessors, certilied copies of Records of Rights (Exs.A3 and Al l) substantiating proprietorship and certifred pahanies (Exs.A4 to Al0 and Al3 to Al7) evidencing continuous possession and enjoyment. The Commissioner's report (Ex. Cl) and the testimony of pW3, the Tahsildar, further established that the Iands claimed by the plaintiffs are distinct from those claimed by the defendants and that the mutation proceedings and sale deeds relied upon by the defendants relate to different survey numbers.

14. The trial Court also found that the testimonies of pWl and PW2 corroborated the plaintiffs' rawful possession and that the defendants had no legitimate claim to the suit properties. pW3, re\ring on official records, confirmed that the suit rands stood in possession of the plaintiffs and that' the defendants, cLaims pertained to other survey numbers. The defendants, through DWs. I to 3, failed to produce any document establishing title or possession over the suit schedule properties and their contentions rerated to lands entirely distinct from those described in the plaint. Applying the principle laid down in Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op Housing. ,/ ,.1-t ./! 13 Societ5r Ltd.rr, that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own tifle, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had discharged this burden beyond doubt. consequently, the trial court rightly granted a declaration of title and possession in favour of the praintiffs, along with a pennanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful enjo5rment of the properties.

15. The findings of the triar court declaring the praintiffs as lawful owners and possessors are correct, justified and supported by the evidence. The appellant's claim of ownership over Ac.2-2o guntas in sy.No.43o/B/paiki, based on mutation as pattadar, cannot override the plaintiffs, established ownership of the suit lands in sy.Nos.430/AAr, 4:3g/AA1 and 4go/AA4. The plaintiffs, title stands fortified by registered deeds, RoR entries, pattadar passbooks, pahanies and consistent oral evidence. The attempt to equate Sy.No.43o /B/pair<r with the suit surve.y numbers is factualy and legally untenable, the boundaries of the suit lands being clearly identifiable and distinct. Allegations of fictitious boundaries, prior alienations, or suppression of material facts remain unsubstantiated and do not detract from the plaintiffs,legally recognized ownership.

16. The burden of proving an inconsistent craim rested squarely on the appellant. Both the trial and appellate courts "AIR 2ot+ sc 932 I t ''3 74 correctly relied upon the plaintiffs'title deeds, possession records and offrcial entries. The appellant,s post-suit sale deeds and speculative assertions regarding interference or irreparable loss do not and cannot dislodge the plaintiffs' established rights. The doctrine of estoppel further bars the appellant from disputing the plaintiffs' rights in the absence of any challenge to the original sale deeds in their favour.

17. In sum, the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate Courts, based on unimpeachable documentaqr and oral evidence, firmly uphold the plaintiffs, title, possession and entitlement to protection against interference. The appellantt contentions are wholly unsustainable. The substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal are misconceived. Both Courts below have meticulously appreciated the evidence and recorded clear lindings. The plea that the Courts ignored the appellant's evidence is meritless, as the plaintiffs independently established their title through longstanding revenue entries and identification of the lands in Sy.Nos.430/AA1, 433/AAl, and 43OlAA4, distinct from the appellant,s lands in Sy.Nos.43OlB and 433/8. The contention that ancestral properties ceased to exist after the sale under Ex.B2 is a pure question of fact already rejected.The plaintiffs never claimed the lands covered by Ex. Et2. The chain of a . '*V ,i' .fr' 15 : documents Exs.B2, 85, 86 and 81 pertains to different lands and cannot divest the plaintiffs of tifle. Allegations that Exs.Al and A2 are fabricated are unsupported by any admissible evidence. Even otherwise, defects in revenue records do not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. Similarly, the assertion that sy.No.43O-B is identical to sy.No.43o-AA is a factual plea conclusively rejected below on the basis of offrcial survey evidence. Mutation proceedings in Ex.B3 relating to Sy.No.430/B were therefore rightly held irrelevant. Mu.tation does not confer title. The appellants' attempt to recharacterize factual disputes and boundary issues as substantial questions of law is impermissible. As the concurrent lindings disclose no perversity or misapplication of legal principles and the appeal mere$ seeks re-appfeciation of evidence, which is barred under Section 1OO CPC, the proposed questions merit rejection in limine.

18. Section lOO CPC mandates that a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. The High Court's jurisdiction is confined to appeals a involving slch questions specifically pleaded T 1t*11"-:j,_ ""_ 16 held in Thtagarqiaa Vs. Venugopalaswamy B. Koll 12 and Dharmarajan Vs. ValliammaFa.

19. Viewed from any angle, the concurrent factual frndings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court are binding in second appeal and cannot ordinarily be interfered with. The memorandum of appeal discloses no substantial question of law. Having scrutinized the judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court, this Court finds no irregularity in their appreciation of evidence or application of law. Therefore, no substantial question arises for consideration and the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. The law is well settled that substantial questions of law arise only when a second appeal is admitted or when it is allowed, where the second appeal is dismissed at the threshold, no such formulation is required, as held in Harl lYarayaa Baasal Vs. Dada Dev Mandir Prabandhak Sabha (Barah Gaon! Pahmr+.

20. Accordingly, applying the settled principles and considering the facts of this case, this Court finds that no a substantial question of law is made out in the memorandum of appeal.The findings of both Courts are based on proper appreciation of evidence. No material has been ignored nor has any inadmissible -4 " (zoonl s scc ze2 " 1zoo81 z scc z+r 1zots1 16 scc s+o ., ./ /z',' L7 r evidence been relied upon. There is thus no scope for interference with the concurTent frndings. The High court has no jurisdiction in second. appeal to re-examine mere factual errors, however gross they may appear. The judgments of the courts below disclose no irregularit5r amounting to a substantial question of law. 2L. The conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to evade the finality of judicial determinations' Despite the decree in O.S. No.18 of 2015 and dismissal of A'S No' 18 of 2015, the appellant sought to reopen the very same issues by frling o.S.No.7 of 2022 regarding the same property. The trial court rightly rejected the suit under order vII Rule 11 CPC as being barrqd by res iudicata and constructive res judicata, telming it a prohibited re-litigation of settled matters. The appellant',s subsequent filing and withdrawal of A.S.No.329 of 2023 further reveals a pattern of vexatious, repetitive litigation calculated to keep the dispute alive without lawful basis. such conduct amounts to a clear abuse of process, undermines the finality of judicial decisions and burdens the judicial system with frivolous proceedings' It warrants strict censure

22. When the above factual matrix is meticulously examined, it becomes evident that the grounds urged in this second appealarewhollydevoidofmeritanddonotwarrantany I I i I interference by this court with the well-reasoned and concurrent findings of the trial court,and the first appellate court. No basis is therefore made out for entertaining or allowing this second appeal.

23. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. In sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this second appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// , SD/. V.HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,'(e SECTION OFFICER I '1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The lll Additional District Judge, Gadwal. (with records if any) One CC to SRl. GODUGU MALLESHAM Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.S. ARJUN KUMAR, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies \ To ASR/PSL.v a. d .,# l. Y1 {, t. - AStr t I ,4,,r :.'#' ;, *'s fr. Sr^ :.: f,s,r :#fil HIGH COURT DATED |2311012025 JUDGMENT SA.No.78 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE APPEAL x t ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL SECOND APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2021 Between Mogal Shamsheer Baig, S/o. Ivlogal Ahmed, Aged 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No. 401421158, Bhaskar Nagar, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, 'Kurnool Town AND APPELLANT

1. N. Ramakrishna, S/o. S. Murthaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Bonthala Street, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.

2. Kuna Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Pedda Balanna, Aged about 64 years,Occ.Agriculture R/o. Pullur Village, Manopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .

3. Kurva Munemma, Wo Madiletti, Aged 61 years, Agriculture Fi/o. Pullur Village, [Vlanopad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. RESPONDENTS T Appeal under section 100 C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dt. O8tO3t2A19 in A.S.No. 18 of 2015 on the file of Ill Addl District Judge, Gadwat, and afso to set aside the Judgment and Decree in 05.4112006, dt.26l}Ol2015 on a the file of Honourable Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Godugu Mallesham, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri N.S. Arjun Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. / To That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// l. The III Additional District Judge, Gadwal 2. Two CD Copies. SD/- V.HARI PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER t. i HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 DECREE SA.No.78 of 2021 DISMISSING THE APPEAL r\eb ' t l