The High Court · 2025

3. Sinqam Srisailam, s/o. Peddaiah, Aged a.bout 45.years,.occ. Agriculture R/o F;ifp;i;ili; Viliage, It'lu nusode Mandal, Nalgonda District

4. Singam Brrgganma, Wio Late peddaiah, Aged about Z6 yea s, Occ. 5. Gundeboir a yzrdamma., Wo. Maraiah, Age 59 years, Occ. Hcuse hold, 6. Somanabc ina l\ndalu, Wo. Ramachandraiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Agricutture , R.'. pulip6lgpLrla Village. Mr;,;g&;"[/rno,,l (rrqohJ;6i.tri"t Gouraram posl, Kangai Mandal. N;G"il"; "" ," House horr I, R/r:. Brahmana veremari'vrrige.'NYarketpalry t,'ahdar. Nargonda

7. Manneboir a Salhamma @ Hamsamma, Wo_ BixamaizLh Age about 50 years, Or;c Horrse hotd, R'/o Jentraram'Viiragel iianagrf fr,lu"mniii"filnO, 8. Nerredi Su lunamma W-/o.Muthaiah, Aged about 4/ ye)rs,Otc. Aqriculture R/o Singar 1m Virrage,MunugoJ, irt';"o1llr.r?UIloa oi,;trrct ...Defendants / Resporrdents / Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 20 2A Petition un Jer liection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend passed rn AS_No. 14 of pending disposal of the the judg:ment and decree daled 26tO2l2O2O the file of ihe prl. District Judge, Nalgonda 2019 on appeal. Counsel for the Ar:pellants Sri V V Ramana Counsel for the Rr:spondents Sri Ch Laxminarayan 1 Rep.Sri KVSudhakar The Court delivere d the following Judgment : I )l HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO.149 of 2020 JU DGMENT: Heard Mr. V.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr.Ch. Laxminarayana, learned counsel representing lvlr.K.V.Sudhakar, learned counsel on record for the respondents' has been filed bY the 2. This Second APPeal appellants/plaintiff assailing the decree and judgment dated 26.02.2020 in A.S.No.14 of 2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.11.2018 in O.S.No.300 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. 3(a) Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiff had filed suit O'S'No 300 of 2008 asserting title and exclusive possession of an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.O4.lTguntasinSy.No.Sl3situatedatPulipalupulavillage' Munugode mandal, Nalgonda District (for short' 'the subiect land') that he had perfected title by way of adverse possession since 13.08.1996. Thus, the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants' 2 N"TR,J sA t49 2020 3(b) lt ras been averred that the subject lanr j was originally owned by one Vattipalli Latchaiah and after iris dernise, the property was devolved on his two sons i.e. l)edda Venkata Narsaiah and Chinna Laxmi Narsaiah and other two s,rns were given in adoption. As pedda Venkata Narsaiah -emained issueless his wife succeeded the propefi. On ,:he oil-rer hand, Chinna L axm i Narsaiah had one son who is th: fathr-.r of the plaintiff. Afte,r the death of wife of pedda Verrkata \arsaiah (Lilithamnra), the plaintiffls father (Narahari) be,:ame absolute owner an<l all 1he lands were mutated in his name. 3(c) The plaintiffls father had four sons including lhe plaintiff and in partitior the subject land fell to the plaintiffs share and in .l 996 his name was mutated in revenue records. Nonetheless as the defendant No 1 without any interest or right has b:en in.:erfering with the pc ssession, the praintiff fired suit for perma lent injunction vide O.S.No 'l a.5 of 1992 along with one Kambampati Venkataiah wherein th: de,fendant No..l set up a claim of owrrership basing on a Will f eed of the year.l962 executed by Lilithamma. wife of Pedda Verkatar Narsaiah. pending the suit the defendart No.1 filed countrlr claim seeking declaration of tifle over the subject land and cl;rimed entiflement for possession. 3 NTR,J sA 149 2020 3(d) The trial Court after due trial dismissed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction and allowed the counter claim by observing that the plaintiff did not dispute the Will Deed proposed' in the counter claim and declared the defendant's title over the subject land. That judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in A.S.No.62oflgg6andsubsequentsecondappealalsometthe same fate in the year 2001 (13'06'2001)' 3(d) ln this backdrop the plaintiff by pleading that the trial Court had observed the fact that he is in the possession of the subject land and even after favourable iudgment in counter claim as the defendantdidnotcomeintopossessionofthesubjectlandand as he is in continuing possession and enjoyment from the last '12 years, he had acquired title by way of adverse possession' Thus prayed for the suit relief He further pleaded that earlier the defendant No.1 had filed suit O'S'No'335 of 2006 seeking perpetual injunction claiming his possession being disturbed over the suit land. However, at a later date the suit was not pressed and this fact is strengthening the plaintiffs possession over the suit land 4. The trial Court after due trial held that non filing of suit for possession by the defendants will not affect their title over the 4 NTR,J sA_119_2020 subject r)rop,-irty and the evidence of PW-2, DW-1 and pahaniesrExs:A-9 to A-'12lExs:B-3 to B-8 are estalllishinly the fact that the p aintrff is not in possession more than 12 years adverse to the intr:resls of the defendant No.1, thus the possessory tifle cannot be granted. ln the absence of evidence of pos;session, perpetual injunction has been declined. 5. Aggrievr-'d thereby the plaintiff filed A.S.No.. 4 of 2019 and the appel,ate Court on re-appraisal of the mate rial on record observed thal in spite of assertion the pW-.I failec to file passbook and title deeds and placed pahanies/E:xs:A-Il to A-g are reflecting tlre name plaintiffs father. The paharries/Exs:A-9 to A-12 tor tl e years 2001-2007 are in the name of defendant No.1 as pattedar anrJ possessor. Further Kasra pahani/t:x.A-.1 is in the name of w fe cf Pedda Venkata Narsaiah (Lalithamma). ,As such the title cli:rimed by the plaintiff over the subject lirnd cannot be accepted. Fudher observed that the previous suit I S.No..l45 of 1992, all lhesr: claims were placed and conclud,td in Second Appeal No 1125 of 2000. Thus making self same ;laim rs hit by res judicatit. However, by observing that the essen,:ial element of uninterrupk>d oossession adverse to the interests ,tf the plaintiff has not been established and indeed by the documerrts are I 5 NTR,J sA 149..2020 proving possession of defendant No.1 confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would plead that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the materials on record and erred in dismissing the suit by observing that the suit is hit by res judicata. The Courts below failed to observe that the suit even without title when the plaintiff is in possession of the property the same should have been secured by granting injunction. The Courts below ought to have observed that earlier suit is not an impediment to file suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction seeking precipitation of rights of the plaintiff' I have perused the materials on record'

7. 8. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession' Admittedly earlier suit i e' O.S.No.147 of 1992 was filed for injunclion and the defendant No.1 through counter claim sought for declaration of title under a Will and the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant was dismissed by allowing the defendant No'1's counter claim' The successive contests against the judgment in counter claim by way of the first and second appeals were concluded in negative' . !hus, the title of the defendant has been determined' The plaintiff 6 NTR,J sA 149_2020 in the pre:sent suit set up adverse possession frorr the date of the decree irr counter claim of the defendant No.1 ilnd consequent permane rt in. unction. 9. Be that as it may, the claim of adverse pcssession would sustain vrhen a person not being legal owner cf the property acquires )wnrlrship rights by openly, exclusively and cortinuously possessirrg the property for the statutory period. The evidence placed lly the plaintiff, particularly the documernts i.e. pahaniesrExs:A-2 to A-8 and Exs:A-9 to A_12lExs:B_3 to B_g are disclosing the, name of the defendant No.1 as pattedar and possessor of the subject land. Therefore coniinuous; hostile possession of the praintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 is failing short. Further non filing ofthe pattedar pass book and tite deeds as claimed by the plaintiff is strengthening the defr:ndants, possessio I as reflected in the pahanies. The sublect land being open land, placing reliance on entries in the nrvenue record brought or to record by the praintiff himself in juxtapositior of serf serving claim is; perfecfly justified. This being the factual position, the inevitarle r;oncrusion shail be that the praintiff had faired to establish n raterial ingredients qualifying the statutory requirement for grant c f adverse possession. ln the circumstzrnces, as the 7 NTR,J sA 149 2020 plaintiffs claim is relied on post decretal adverse possession' the observation of the appellate Cou( that the claim of title by the plaintiff is hit by res iudicata though not sustainable' this would not better the plaintiffls position, as the evidence is failing on essentials of adverse possession' Therefore' it shall be held that the Courts below had considered the merits on proper perspective in passing the judgments' 1 O. ln effect, the conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment by the appellate Court in the decree and iudgment daled26.02.2020inA.S.No.14of2019passedbythePrincipal District Judge, Nalgonda confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.'l 1.2018 in O.S.No.300 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, deserves affirmation and consequently' the Second Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly' dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any' stands closed. ,/TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. SATY DEPUTY REG AVATHI ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, lThePrincipalDistrictJudge,Nalgonda(withrecords,ifany) i. i'n" Lrnioi civil Judge' Naloonda '. o;;;C ," sriV V Ramanal Advocate tof-u'cl' ;; i; s;i K V sudhakar' Advocate toPUCl ; il 5. Two CD CoPies HtcH cot,tRl' DATED:23101t2025 JUDGMEN-I- + DECREE SA.No.149 of 2020 o( gTH€g 74 lO aic O1APfr M -+ r+ ft,- ( 2 DRAFTS ) \C i/ DISMISSINGi THE APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI SECOND AP PEAL NO i 149 oF 2020 Between:

1. Vattipalli Muralaiah, S/o Narahari' Aged about 92 vears' Occ Agriculture & ' i;;;'di'il,'trru pri'p;r,liiii,viirlg;-"Ni''""'sode Nilanodl' Nalsonda District (Died) Per LRs 2 to 6 ...Plaintiff / Appellant / Appellant 2. Vattipalli Lakshmamma, Wo V Murlaiah'. Aoed about 73 Vears' Occ Houiehold, R/o H.'iio:lli""iuriparupuii'- Munrigodu Mandal' Pulipalpula' Nalgonda-508244 3. Vattipalli Satyanarayana Sharma' S/o V Muralidhar Sharma' Aged about 53 Arcade, New v r vears. occ nsricurt;;l Hif"Filtfti, bolonY, Nalgonda-50800 1

4. G.Aniali Devi, Wo. G Prabhakar Sharma' Aged about 5-6 year:t Occ -ioto6' (Faroor)' Rarisa Reddv- 'c-alS'i-sJlnrth Hous'ewife, R/o 48 nIi,ii i[5g]i:"ir'6'i'i' 50151 '1

5. Penna Sharada, Wo Penna Mohan' Aged about 50 yeqlsrggc Housewife' R/o. H.No 6-2-7tstiNblS"'vit'ragai c5tony' Nalgonda-S08001 Aged about 40 6. Gadebatla Hemalatha, Wo' Gade-batla ^Shankarashasthry' vears. occ uor."*ii;, il;'l H-"il;):ii' cnoutuppat Mand-al' Lingoji Gudem' irlalgonda-5082 52 I Appellants Nos.2 to 6 are brought on r99o1! as per LRs of the deceased sole Appellant u,o" b"oJ't'o"to""'-#i; 0i-05 zoza iri t'n uo t of 2024 | AND '1 . Singam Pedaiah, (Since died through his LRs 2 to 8) 2. Sinqam Yadaiah, S/o Peddaiah' Agtl lQg'i 50 years Occ Agriculture' R/o L 3. Sinqam Srisailam, S/o Peddaiah' Aged a.bout 45 vears' Occ' Agriculture Rio J' 4. Sinqam Buggamma, Wo' Late Peddaiah' Aged ahout 76 vears' Occ' F;ii#i,p;; niri;s;, M,;;;il; rvr'"na'i' Nargonda District E;iip;ifi;i; Vrri,s":' t J ";;;;;' MaXoat' t'tatsonda District Asriculture. nlo pur''pli'l"piiViri'"g; Mlj;i'gi'ne Mandal' Nalsonda District Goutar.m Post, Kangal Mandal Nalgonoa S.GundeboinaYadamma,Wo..Maraiah,Ag^e5gyears,occ.Household, 6. Somanaboina Andalu, Wo Ramachandraiah' Aoed about 56 years' Occ' House hold, R/o. B;;1;;;;'vEri"ijG Virr'se' Niiietpatlv Mahdal' Nalsonda District l 7 . Mannebc'na Siathar 8 ye a rs, o c c n oi; HII: p,J 3:i,?#tr #,,& j,[?T: H,Tl".l,f i,.:H ili,T,i; Hi? y,T!i i1? fl | "#j ,33, o, m, *,",, 6:IXI I ;S,i?;,o "" Asricu,ture, ...Defendants / Respo ndents; / Respondents ^A:ft Appeal (/n Jer llectt(

26.02.2020 mad., ir ::ffi ;;:'; l l:':,i:J:"rerred Judge, at Nalgoncra. i: l:t;tff::T:,;,:" asa nst'n" Judgn,ent ard Decree dated "0'll#'il'J' :::::.:::'; 05-11-2018 on the file of the c,urt of the Junior civil ^. This appea corring on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, materjar papr:rs in the case lTff:: ::::#i::1: the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court ana tn and upon hearing the;rrguments of Sri V v nra"n., il:r::::,:' This Court doth Orc er and decree as follows:- L"' nu'Jv'n' Representns',, ^',1'

1. That the Serc rnd r\ppeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall bt: no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPYII To, 1 VA The Principal I istrrc:t Judge, Nalgonda

2. The Junior Civi 3. Two CD Copies Judge, Nalgonda e?Hi,?v',fJJAyAlH ,SECTION OFFICER HIGH COtjRT' DATED:2310112025 DECREE SA.No.149 ol 2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL ') {lv 1