The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI D. JAGADESHWAR RAO The Court delivered the following Judgment : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.281 of 2025 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is hled aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in A.S.No.S9 of 2022, by which the judgment and decree, dated 13.O6.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S.No.78 of 2Ol2 was set aside.

2. The appellants herein' are defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.78 of 2Ol2 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property against defendants. In the plaint it is averred that plaintiff is the owner ald pattadar of suit schedule property which is ancestral property and he raised sugar cane crop in the lands and his name was also recorded as pattadar in revenue record and pattadar pass book has also been issued; that defendants without any manner of right trying to interfere with the possession of suit schedule property and hence, the suit for injunction. I I

4. Defcn<lzrnt No.1 fited the written statement s,hich was adopted by ! 2 LNA, J SA.,Yo.;61 of 2025 the other delcndants denying the suit averments. It is averred that one Laxma Redrlr wzrs common ancestor and has got two sons namel)' Narayana Rcrldv and Durga Reddy and they partitioned their joint family propcrtics. l)urgzr Reddy married Bagamma i.e., the mother of defendant No.I and his two wivcs have no children and the defendant No.1 was adopted by Durga Reddy. Plaintiff is a doctor practicing at Hyderabad and suit schcduk' land and other properties of Durga Reddy are bcing looked altcr b1, defendant No. 1and he raised crops in the suit schedule lands and that thcrc was earlier partition between the plaintiff and delendant No. I and dclendant No.t has got suit schedule property torvards his shnrc and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On thc basrs of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framcc] the following issues for trial:- 1) Whether the plainttlf is entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2) 'lit uhat rc:lieJ?

6. During the cou rse o[ trial on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintitt himself was t'xaminecl as PWl and another witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to Al4 werc marked. On behalf of defendant No. 1, the \ ,7 3 l.iA..l Sil tlo 281 of20)5 defendant No. t himsell was examined as DW 1 and two more witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked Ex. B1 to Ex.B25.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit with the following observations vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018: 1O. IL is euidence of Ex. 825 election identitA card thot defendant 1Vo.I is a son of Dtrga Reddg and the same is nol senbusrU questioned bA the plaintiff, the defendants admitted in the statements that lhe plaintiff is adopted bA ttuo uues of Durga Reddg, as such plaintiff and defendant No.1 were like brother anrl sons of Durga Reddy. So the plointiff also entilled to share in the propefties of Dtga Reddg. There is no pleading in the plaint that lhe plaintiff became the owner under Ex.A14 gift deed.

11. The defendant No.l also filed suit for declaration in OS No.62 of 2OO8 dectaring him qs son of Durga Reddy reliefs against the defendant who is plaintiff in the suit in rcspect of the same propert\. DW2 and DW3 the same uillagers also supported lhe dekndant that defendant No.l is the son of tturga Reddy bom to Bagamma through Durga Reddg. So defendant No-| being son of Durga Reddg b entitled to share in lhe properlies of Durga Reddg and claimiag the suit propertg touards his shore, as such the plainliff is not entitled to iniunctiotl against the defendant No.l particularly being share holder of the propefties left bg Durga Reddg Therefore the ptaintiff is not entttled to injunction 4 LAA. J SA No )81 of2025

8. Aggrieved by the same, ptaintifi preferred appeal vide A.S.No.S9 of 2022 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy. The [rrst Appellate Court, bcing the hnal fact-hnding Court, re-appreciated the entirc cvidence and material available on record and allowed the Appeal, vidc Jucigment and decree, d.ated 05.02.2025 by setting aside the Judgmcnt and decree dated 13.O6.2018 passed in O.S.No.78 of 20L2.

09. The hrst Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:-

19. .......Fur7ltemrcre alrectdg the gift settlement deed LS executed in fauour of the plaintiff bg Veeramma, the second wik of oigiral otuner, Durqa Reddu in the Aedr 1993 itself, since then tlrc nanre of the plaotttJf ts coming as petTadar and possessor.. F-urther he himself deposed in the cross examiftqtion thqt tltere is no Cccuntent executed bg Veerammu allotting a share to lint, he cane to kaow about the executiotl of the gtft settletnent <leed bq Veeranrna in fauour of the pW1. Thus he is aluare of executiorr of the g{l settlement deed in the gear 1994 ilselt. lf tllet rs so f/re questioi of ag(ttn oral parTiton does not artse and euen if it is so, oflecst he Luould haue taken the steps for mlltatiotl on lis nqm.e ur uiew of the so,id oral partition etc. Further he llitnsel,f adnlitted ir cross exqmination thqt he did not frle anry palrtnies irr n:spect of the suit lands to shoto that he uas cultiuating the lat:r.ls from the year 1999-2OO6 which are basic dor-umerrls lo pro{a, l,rtc possession. i 2O. Mere plea artd euicletrce by DWI tc DW3 that the defendent No.1 was dispossesserl bg llle plaintiff after obtaining injunctiol itself is not sufftcient rrnless and until lheA protte that the \ i_ Y 5 LNA, J SA.No.28 ) o.f2025 defenclant No.l u)as in possession pn or to the injunction' but as stoted earlier no single document is in his fauour to proue the s0me 2 1 . with regartl to the titte of the donor Veerammo" it is the cdtegoicol euirlence of PWI in the cross examinotion that the lancl of Durga Reddg wrLs mutclte(l on the names of wiues on his deqth in the Year 1969, tater on on the name of Veeramma' Furthermore it is required to mentlon here that it i-s suggested to Pwl that the ptaintilf and' Veerammq fited O S No 57 of 1993 (lg(litLst the father cind brother of the plaintiff lt is reEtired to mentton lrcre that in the other suit fited bg the defendant No'l l r,,rein seeking declaration, he admitted' that lle gaue euidence as PW2 in the soit/ suit as ct witness in fauour of the plainttff thot he got tlrc suit schedule propeftA under gift settlement deed' FurTher, as stated. earlier all the documentary euidence placed bg tle plaintiff untier Ex AT to Ex'A13 pahaties clearlg shou his possessron from the Aear 1993 onw<trds and also on the dote of filing of this suit

10. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree dated 05.O2.2025, present second appeal is filed' 1 1. Heard Sri D Vij aya Kumar' learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the entire material on record'

12. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Iirst Appellate Court has committed error in reversing the well reasoned judgmenr passed by the trial Court on improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on '1 \ 6 LNA. J SA No )81 of2025 record. He would further submit that the hrst Appellate Court without adjudicating as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of suit schedule property or not which is pre-requisite for maintaining injunction simpliciter and ignoring the settled principle of law that mere revenue entries does not confer title over the suit schedule property, allowed thc appeal on perverse Iinding and therefore, the same is unsustainable ald thus, prayed to allowed the present appeal.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court by placing heary reliancc on trx. 825 - Election identity card and a-lso evidence of DWs 2 and 3, who supported the contention of defendant No. 1 that he is son of Durga Reddy born to Bhagamma, dismissed the suit observing that plaintiff is not entitled to injunction against defendant No. 1, particularl5, he being a shareholder of properiics left by Durga Recidy. Whereas, the first Appellate Court specihcally observed that plaintiff has become owner to suit scheduled prcperty by virtue of gift settlement deed dated O8.07.1993 executed by second wiie of Durga Reddy and the name of the plaintiff has also been recorded in the revenue records as pattadar ald possessor and lurther cbserveri that there was oral partition between defendant No. i and plaintiff. Therefore, \ 7 LNA, J SA No 28t ol2025 the Appetlate Court disbelieved the claim of the defendant No. I that the suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No. 1' The first Appellate Court has also observed that defendant No'1 gave evidence as PW2 in suit fited by plaintiff in O.S.No.S7 of 1993 wherein the defendant No. I admitted the gift settlement deed' The first Appellate Court further observed that documents placed on record in the form of Ex. Al to A14 by the plaintiff clearly show that he was in possession and thus, allowed the appeal and granted injunction.

14. In a suit hlcd for injunction, plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property by way of oral and documentary evidence. In the present case, respondent/ plaintiff has placed adequate documentary evidence in the form of Ex A14 Registered gift settlement deed and Ex. A1 to A13 (Pahanies) which ciearly show the possession of the plaintiff. Whereas, the appellants/defendants have faited to establish his title as well as possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justilied in allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court' \ I 8 LN,I, J SA .t"o lttl of 2a25 I

15. In considered opinion of this Court, learned counsel for the appellants failed to raise any substantial questions of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raiscd in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as thc substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

16. It is wcll settled principle b-v a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 10O C.P.C., this Court cannot intcrfere with the hndings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation ol the oral and riccumentary evidencc on record.

17. Furthcr, rn Gurdea Kqur v. Kakit, 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 substantiai question of law is raised and falls for consideration.

18. Having considered lhe entirc material available on record ald the hndings recorded by the triai Court as well as first t (2Q07) I Supreme Court Cases 546 9 LNA, J SA No.281 oI2025 Appellate Court, this Court hnds no ground or reason warralting interference with the said hndings, 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.

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

20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stard closed. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Principal District and sessions Judge, Sangareddy , sangareddy Dist- One CC to SRl. DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR. Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. D JAGADESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies kuVPSL HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 i JUDGMENT SECOND APPEAL No.281 of2025 ?o k SEl-l (. O 1- 26 A U E M Z\. {' * o PAT I(-tl c DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WII'HOTJT COSTS l8bo o(