The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.O2-2025, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in A.S.No.46 of 2022 by which the judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S.No.62 of 2008 was sct asidc.

2. The appellant herein iS plaintiff and respondent herein is dcfendant in the su it

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that one Laxma Recldy was thc ancestor of appellant and he has two sons namely Durga Reddy and Narayan Reddy; that there was partition between them and an extent of Ac. 37.O7 guntas fallen to the share of Durga Reddy; that Durga Reddy had two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma ard he kept one Bagamrna as his concubine and out of their relationship the appellant u,as born and Bagamma died when the appellant was 1 % years old; that Satyamma and Veeramma had no issues and they along with Durga Reddy brought up the appellant as their son and performed 2 LNA, J 5,,1.No.263 of2025 his marriage. It is further averred that Durga Reddy expired 25 years ago, Satyamma died about 20 years ago; that Veeramma died on

07.Ol.2006 leaving behind the appellant as their son; that respondent is son of Ramakrishna Reddy who is son of Narayan Reddy i.e., brother of Durga Reddy; that respondent has got executed a will deed dated

19.06.1968 in respect of properties of Durga Reddy and also go[ his name mutated in the year 1984-85; that respondent by playing fraud on Veeramma has got executed gifl settlement deed dated 08.07. 1993 in respect of suit schedule property and along with Veeramma he filed a suit O.S.No.57 of 1993 in respect of suit schedule property on the hle of Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

3.1 It is further averred that appellant purchased a tractor in the year 2O01 by hypothecating the suit lands to Manjeera Grameena Bank, Jogipet Branch and got the tractor registered in the name of respondent as the lands are in the name of respondent. The respondent taking advantage of revenue entries filed suit in O.S.No.25 of 2O06 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jogipet against appellant ald his family members for perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed and the respondent preferred appeal in CMA No.09 oI 2006 and same was a-llowed. Basing t on the sarne, respondent dispossessed the appellant from the suit I 7V t ,u ro rr.fli,t! schedule property and the appellant got issued a legal notice to handover the possession and the respondent issued a false reply claiming ownership of the property. Therefore, the appellant filed suit in O.S.No.62 of 20O8 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak seeking to declare him as the son of late P.Durga Redd1, and entitle him to claim share in the properties of P.Durga Reddy ald to declare him as owner of the suit property and tractor and cancellation of gift settlement deed dated 08.07.1993 and recovery of possession of schedule property from defendant anrl award damages of Rs. 1O,O00/- towards damages of crop and mesne prohts of Rs.2,0O,OOO/- per year till lhe recovery of possession and correction of entries in revenue records.

4. Respondent filed the Written Statement admitting his relationship with brother of respondent's graldfather and also that Durga Reddy has two r,l,ives namely Satyamma and Veeramma and they had no issues. Durga Reddy died in the year 1967 leavin-g behind land to an extent of Ac.26.O7 guntas but not Ac.37.O7 guntas, Satyamma died in 1984 and Veeramma died on 07.Ol.2006 and the appellant has wrongly mentioned his father's name as Durga Reddy instead of Durgaiah ; that appellant is .not the legal heir of Durga Reddy and that after the death of Durga t Redd5{, his two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma succeeded to his I I o ,o.ro rr, .i";;rt, \ properties and it became their Sreedhana' properties. Satyamma and Veeramma executed a will in favour of respondent and after the death of Satyamma, Veeramma executed a gift settlement deed dated 08.O7.1993 in favour of respondent in respect of suit schedule property; that respondent along with Veeramma filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 1993 against brother ald father of respondent for injunction and the same was decreed on 22.09.1998. The appellant never cultiva[ed the suit schedule property and only the respondent dug bore well, connected electricity and also purchased a tractor in his name in the ycar 200 1; that respondent is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property and his name was mutated in the revenue records. It is furthcr averred that respondent hled a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2006 for injunction against the appellant and his family on the frle of Junior Civil Judge, Jogipet, however, the said suit was dismissed and the respondent preferred an appeal in CMA No.09 of 2006 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by lhe same, the appellant preferred appeal before this Court and the same was also dismissed. The appellgnt is stranger to the family of Durga Reddy and the respondent got the properties and that gift settlement deed and all the revenue records including pattadar pass books are in \ \ I a t1 t:' .' .////7/ 7 / 5 LNA, J SA.No.263 of2025 the name o[ respondent arrd the suit is false and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- 1) Whether the appellant is the son of Durga Reddg? 2) Whetlter the appellant succeeded the propertg after death of his father and his tuiues? 3) Whether the respondent uas brought up bg the ttuo utiues of Durga Reddg as their son after death of Durga Reddg? (4) Whether the tuo uiues of Durga Reddy exeanted any in fouour of respondent in respect of the propertg left bg Durga Reddlt? 5) Whether Veeramma the tuife of Durga Reddg execttted a gift deed dated OB 7- 1993 in fauour of respondent? 6) Whether the appellant is entitled to declaration to declare that the appellant is the Legal Representatiue of Durga Redd.g and entitLed to share in the properties of Durga Redd.g? 7) Whether the appeLlant is entitled to possesslon of both mouables and immo uable properties? I ) ) 6 LNA, J SA.No 263 of)025 8) Wlettrcr the appellant is entitled to One lakh rupees touards the damages of standing crop? 9) To whot reliej?

6. During the course of trial on behalf of appellart, the appellant himself was examined 4s PW1 and three more witnesses werc examined as PWs 2 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On behalf of respondent, the respondent himself was examined as DW 1 and one more witness was examined as DW2 and got marked Ex. B1 to Ex.B14.

7. After full-fledged trial atrd upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit with the following observaLions vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.20 18:

10. There is no dispute thqt the election idettity card of oppellant herein marked as Ex.B-25 in O. S..lVo. 78 of 2O12, wherern the appellant and his wife qnd son are respondents. As per Ex. 825 the fqther name of appellant is Durga Reddg, but not Durgaiah- Ex. 825 b the document issued bg pubLic authontA and it is luuing its otun ualue. Tlere is no contra euidence produced bg the respondent. PWs 2 dnd 3 being the same uillagers of Kansanpallg uillage fiIed euidetrce affidauits supporling tlpt the appellant uos boru to Durga Reddg through his concubine Bagammq. As the appellant himself admitled that \ '7 LNA J SA.No.263 oJ 2025 his mother was concubine of Durga ReddA, the appellant continued his motler's sltmame as Tenugu. The respondent also admitted that the oppel[ont born to Bagamma. The appellanl is son of Bagamma through Durgoieh. No euidence produced bg respondent to clanfg LUlTo ruas the alleged Durgoiah.

11. ........PW4 gaue a detailed account of familg of Durga Reddg in his cross-exnminatiotl end the euidence of PW4 due to close relationship of Veeramrrta is more rrateial and the euidence of appellant and PW4 coupled tutth election identitg card that appellant uas the son of Durga Reddg is su,fficieat that the appellant boru to Bagamma througlr Durga Reddg unless the qppellant bont to Bagamma tltough Durga Reddy he is enough to claim of son of Durga ReddA TlLe fact of the oppellant bom to Iturga Reddg, the family of Durga Reddg could haue rqisecl an objection in clatming about the claim of the appellant. So the oral euidence coupled toith election identitg card of appellant proued the claim of the appellant that lle uas borrl to Bagamma through Durga Reddg, hertce this lssue ls onsrrrered in fauour of the appellant.

12. ......As admitted bg both the partrcs Durgd Reddg died tn the Aear 1967, after lis death his two tutues succeeded the properties atLd SatAamma died [rt the gear 1985 and afr.er that Veeramma succeeded aLl lhe propertrcs. The appellant being the illegitimate son of Durga Reddg lruutng equaL right along uith his two tuiues and he succeeded the properties of Durga Reddg in eEtal share along with lus ttuo Luiues. This issue i"s qnstue,red accordinglg. v ) ) 8 LNA, J SA.No.26J of 2D5

8. The triel Court in the tight of evidence of PW4 who is aware of family atfairs of appellant, coupled with Etection Identity Card decrced the suit of appellant.

9. On appeal, thc flrst Appellate Court, being the hnal fact-finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and allowed the Appeal, vide Judgment and decree, dated O5.O2.2O25 by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 13.O6.2018 passed in O.S.No.62 of 2008.

10. The tirst Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:-

17. It is ehctted in the cross examinqtion of PWI that his surnarne is Tenugu and the sqid surname is stautn in all lhe records like uoter card, aadhar card, ratiom card and in others, wherea,s the surtldme of the respondent is Pullannagai so also Durga Reddg ulton he is claiming as hts father. Further he qdmitted that after the death of Durga Reddg all the properlies were mutated on the name of truo Luiues. If reallg he is the son of Durga Reddg his name also tuould haue been mutated along with his two wiues. Further he adnitled that all tlle properTtes belonging to Durga Reddy mutated on the name oJ lhe respond.ent in the reuenue records. 18. When the suit is filed bA the appellont seeking declaration, the burden lies on him to proue the same. As stated earlier tlo documentary euidence at atl placed in this case as Ex.Al to ElsAlS are not relotinq to declare his stalus. FurThetnore euen tf cotrsiderecl that he filed uoter card itt the other suit filed bg the I t. 9 t.i'A..l SA No 263 of 20?5 respondent herein in O.S I{o.25 of 2006, no other doanmentary euidence is placed bg him to sltolu thut he was slown os the sorl of Dllrga ReddA sttce the ale of I 1/z year us cloimed. It s also the euidence of PW2 in cross ex.oninalion that aftet tlrc death of Durga Reddg, hts wtues Satganurta encl Veeramma inheiLed the . properties but not the qppellonl

19. Ott the other hand in this cose, a gift settlemeti deecl was executed in fauour of the respondent bg Veerammo LUho is the second wik of P. Durga Reddg under Ex.A14 m the gear 1993 itself and furlher all the paharues Jiled by the respondent Ex. B 1 to Ex.B13 Jrom the Aear 1993-94 ctearly show the name of the respondent as pattadar (rnd possessor. Il is tlte respondent LUho filed the suit at first seeking ttrJuttchort a'|d lhereafler appellant herein came up with this suil. The appellant himself rnade o pleaclang in the plairLt thqt Veeramma executed the gift settletnent deed it fauour of the respondent herein in respect ol' the surt sclrcdule properlrcs and. they both filed the sutt in O.S ,Vo.57 of 1993, the Judgment Ln the said sui, under Ex.A14 clearly shotus that the appellant herein deposed as PW2 in their fauour rltol it is the respoldent ,,uho is alone cultiuating the suit land as oluner arrd pattadar, he has been q.ltiuating the said land for the lasl 3O years. Thus he is aware of lhe execution of the g{t deed n the Aear 1993 itself when lhe suit is filed, but he did tlot take onlJ steps, on the other hand, he suppofied the case of the respondent heretn. Though it is his contention that subseqltent to that oral partition took place and the suit schedule propertes Luere allotted to him, no matenal is placed. in th[s regard. As stated earl[er if really partition took place I and he was allotted the suit schedule propeflies towerds his I share there would haue been erltnes in lhe reuenue records. but it is no, so, therebg in absence of suclt euidelce lis contenlion is not belieuable. t0 LNA, J SA No 263 of 2D5 It is elicited in the cross ex@minqtion of PwI thot the suit schedule properlies fallen to the share of, P. Durga Reddg in partttion uith his brother NaroAan Reddy- Though he deposed that he b in possessron he qdmitted that h.e did not fle pahani to shaw he uras in possession along Loith Durga Reddg ouer the suit schedule lanrds during his tifetime. He fwrtlrcr admitted that after death oJ Durga Reddg all his propertles were mutated on the name of his two wtues, he knous the said fads at the time of the mutation ttself and further he edmitted that he did not rqise ang objection, he did not f.le any case before tlrc reuenue authorities or ciuil court challenging the enties. PW4 deposed that he t as present at the time of oral partition, but his name uas not at all pleaded in the plamt or deposed bg PW, appellant htmself, therebg no reliance can be placed on such euidence, Futlhermore it is not belieuable in uieut of rtott filing of ang enties subsequent to that on the name of oppellant. Hence for the recLso'rs discussed aboue this courl is of the uielu thot appellant fatled to proue that he is the son of Durga Reddg bg plactng sufficient euidence, therebg he is not entttled for declqration olf his status and further he is also not entitled to declare he is the heir of Durga Reddg in respect of ancestral properlies lhat le gol tn panilion.

11. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree dated

05.O2.2025 present second appea,l is frled.

72. Heard Sri D.Vrjaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the entire material available on record. v " ,r.rorrri);ir!

13. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the hrst Appellate Court has mis-read and mis-interpreted the documents placed on record and ignored the evidence of pW1 and pW4 and thus, came to erroneous conclusion that appellant is not lhe legal heir of Durga Reddy and that he is not entitled for share in the suit schedule property. He would further submit that the flrst Appellate Court has given much weightage to revenue entries ald proceeded to decide the appeal ignoring the settled principle of law that mere entries in revenue records does not create anv title and would further submit that purported will deed dated 19.06.196g is not registered and therefore, gift settlement deed executed by Veeramma in favour of respondent ought to have been cancelled. He hnally submitted that the lirst Appellate Court reversed a well reasoned judgment of trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and prayed to allow the Second Appeal.

14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court: -I t i) Hari Krishna Patel qnd o'nother Vs. Stcte oJ A.P. and t2 LNA, J SA.No.263 of2025 o,nother, ii) Gurunath Mo.nohar Poorrskar and Others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa NaaaQund and. others2

15. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court has given much credence to the evidence of PW4 who is not from the same village and Election identity card while decreeing the suit. Whereas, the first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has come to conclusion that name of respondent is recorded as pattadar and possessor since 1993 and that appellant has failed to place any material on record proving his possession. First appellate Court further observed that appellant was examined as PW2 in the suit O.S.No.S7 of 1993 filed by respondent for perpetual injunction and he deposed in favour of respondent that respondent has got gift settlement deed. First appellate Court further observed that the gift settlement deed executed by Veeramma in favour of respondent is proper and va-lid t ( 1996\1 scc 706 'z lzoozy tlscc sos l L L\" 1. .J 5.1.:\o a6J ol lt)2i and that appcllant cannot claim any rights over the subject property

16. It is also evident lrom thc record lhat though, trppellant has khou,ledge abouL excculion of gift settlement deed in ther ycar 1993 as he was examined as PW2 in the suit O.S.No.57 ol 1993 hlcd by the respondent, he did not challenge the same, till 2OO8, and no explanation has becn offered by the appellalt for the dela1,-in hling thc suit lor canccllation of gift settlement deed. It is also evident from the record that except. evidence of PW4 and Elcction identitr. card, no othcr material is placed on record l.o prove Lhat appellant is son of l)urga Reddy through Bhagamma. [t is also relevant to observe thal surnam€ of Durga Reddy is Pulli_rnnag:rri whereas jn all the records and Identity cards, the surname o[ appellant is men tioned as Tcnugu.

17. The judgment relied upon by the Appcll:rnt has no application to the present cascJ as the facts and circumstanccs o[ thc said judgmcnt are different u.ith rhat of presenL c:rse _

18. In considered crpinion of this Court, in a suit lor- declaration. burdcn heavilv lies on \ \ plaintilT to prove his entitlcment to suit I .i\1 \ 1+ !.\ LI \ I \., ra I .)/ ,/r )-\ schedule property and as r-ightly obscrvcd by thc first Appcllate Court, appellant/ plaintilf has failed to prove l-ris claim. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal arc firc[ual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial qucstions ol law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

19. It is well settled principle b,l zr catena of der:isions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appcal filed undcr Section 10O C.P.C., thrs Court cannot intcrfere $ith the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appcllatc Courl. u'hiclI are based on proper appreciation of the oral and clocume tl tzrry eviclencc on record.

20. Further, in Gurdea Kaur u..I(aki3, the Apex Court hcld that the High Court sitting in Second Appcal c:rnnot examine the evidence once again as a Lhird trial Court and thc pou'er under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limrtcd and it c:ur be exercised only where a substantial quesLion of lau' is raiscd and falls for consideration.

21. Having considered the enlire material avelilable on record and the Iindings recorded by the trial Court as u'ell as first 3 l2OO7) l supreme Court Cases 546 I l5 1N,1, J SA.No.263 of20)5 Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section 1O0 C.p.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.

22. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. 2. One CC to SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI D JAGADESHWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSI, \rr HIGH COURT DATED:22107 t2025 I ) clR 1HE s,-4 /6 / /. ,J ,:' 26$EM _)

6.( > 2 t * SPATC\ r9o ORDER SA.No.263 ot 2025 DTSMISSING THIl APPEAL G.d4 &-,