SRl. G v. vs A. PRASANNAM Counse

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E. P. No. 481 ot 2022 O. S. No. 255 ol 2019 onthe fite of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Second Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. G. V. V. A. PRASANNAM Counse! for the Respondent: SRI P. NAGESH The Court delivered the following Judgment : l i i HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA I\ I-ISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.240 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This Se.cond Appeal is filed challenging the .tudgment and decree, dated 30.12.2024, passed by the X Addition:I Chief Judge, City Civil Corrrt Hyderabad, in A.S.No.28 of 2023, v,hereunder and whereby the jrrdgment and decree, dated 12.04.2022, passed by the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad" in O.S.No.255 of 2019 was confi rmed.

2. The appellant herein is defendant and respon,lent herein is plaintiff in the suig before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The briel facts of the case are that plaintiff fited the suit in O.S.No.255 of 2019 before V Junior Civil Judge, Citr Civil Courr, Hydearbad, for eviction of defendant from premises bearing H.No.6- 3-1185/ll9/l/A, l$ Floor, admeasuring 45 sq.yds, srtuated at BS Maktha, Begurnpe! Hydeabad, (hereinafter referred to as ,suit premises'). In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff is the owner of 2 LNA, J SA.No210 oJ2025 suit premises having acquired the same under registered gift deed bearing document No.1688/2018, from her brother; that the defendant is tenant of l$ floor of the said house on oral agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- ; that the defendant is none other than second son of plaintiffs brother who defaulted payments of rent since January, 20L7 and as suc[ arrears of rent aggregated to Rs.2,50,000/-; that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 24.12.2018, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Ac! however, defendant failed to vacate the suit premises and got issued a reply notice with false allegations by suppressing the admission made by him before the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court, Hydearbad, regarding payment of rent vide CPLC Petition No.393 of

2018. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and averred that brother of the plaintiff by name Butti Satyanarayana adopted him on 15.09.1981 and that suit premises is ancestral property and defendant is one of the share holders; that the brother of plaintiff has no right to execute gift deed in favour of plaintiff and that plaintiff has no right to receive rents and he never -9--+- 3 LNA. ] SA.No.240 of2025 paid any rent to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is not mirintainable and tiable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the lrarties' the triat 5 Court framed the following issues for trial:- "(t) Whe'ther the plaintif is the absolute owner o{ th 'suit schedule ,oroPertY? (2) Weilter there is any iural relationship between plaintif and deferdant as Landlady and tenant? (j) lt/het,ber the plaintilf is entitled of eviction of aefendant from suit schedule property and to recover the peaceful physical znd vacant possession of suit schedule prop'trty 'from defendant as PraYed for? (4) Wherher the plaintiff is entitled for mesne 7t ofits of Rs.15,000/- per month from I'2'2019 till the date o1'delivery ofpossession of the suit schedule proPerty as prayed for? (5) To whaftelieJ? "

6. To substantiate his case, ptaintiff examined herself as PWl and Exs.Al to A10 were marked' On behalf of the defenrlant' DW'l was examined anct Exs.Bl and B2 were marked' I i I I I I 4 Lt|.,,, .. Sl.No.210 oJ2i23

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and.the contentions of both the parties, the frial Court decreed the suit, vde judgment and decree dated |2.O4.2OZZ.

8. The trial Court in its j udgment categorically observed as hereunder:- " ....Defendant pleaded in his written statement rhar Bufii Salyanarayana adopled him on 15.9.19g1. Even this plea was also introduced by the defendant for the first time in his written statement and it does not fnd place in Ex.A.2. It is sertied law thar the burden is on the person who pleads the adoption. In his arrcmpt to prove the alleged adoption, the defendanr relied upon his own oral eyidence, wherein he reiterated his plea in the wriftun statemenl. No other witness is etamirud by the defendant to prove the alleged adoption. Admi edly, no Deed of Adoprion is filed by the deJendant in this court. In a case v,here a party asserts rights as an adopted sory'daughter, in lhe absence of any documentary evidence, Ihe oral evidence of the persons who are wilnesses to the ceremony of adoption is relevanl. Bul, in lhis cdse, the defendant did not choose to emmine dny person who wirnessed rhe alleged ceremony of adoption. He did not even choose to examine even his natural parents viz., Butti Narsimha and Krishnaveni or any other indqEt ent Wrson, who are the best wilnesses to speak prove the factum of the alleged adoption. The non_examination of the natural parents of the defendant in this case, rherefore, gives rise to an adverse inference against the plea set up by the defendant in this regard. I 5 LNA. J SA.No.240 of2025

8.1 The tria I Court further observed as hereturder:_ "....this court has no hesitation to hold that by virtue oJt the Reg. Gifi Deetl document No.16gg/201g executed by the originul, owner Butti Saltanarayana in favour o/ his sister i.e., plaintirl ptaintiff became the absolute and tandlady in resryct of the suit premises. The defendant having failed to prove his contentior, that rhe proryrty ts the ancestral property of Butti Satyanarayant and that he is the ddopted son of Butti Satyanarayana, it must bc .held fhot defendant is in possession of lhe suit premises only as a l(tont, und thus there is jural relationship between plaintif and defcnrlant and since the tenang) stood terminated by virtue of Ex.A.3 horice, the defendant ;s liable to vacate the premises....,,

9. On appeal, the first Appellate Courl being t.re final fact_ finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated

30.12.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial ( tourt.

10. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- "20. Further, the age of the defendant as per the ffidavit il ieu qf examination in chief as on the date of Jiling of lhe same ,: (i.e., 16.03.2020) is 38 years that meqns his year of birth wa: ,;n or around the year 1982 or so. If it is assumed that lhe defendr.nt was born in the yer j981, then, he may be right in saying thar ,t,,was on f .i.9.1981 i.e, immediarely after his birth. Wh.:t, the -,%op*a 6 LATA. J SA.No.210 of2e25 defendant was taken in adoption, immediately, afier his binh and he was brought up by Butti saryanarayana rhen there must be abundanr documentary evidence, such as, school admission records etc- It is slrange that, no such document is produced. Moreover, the defendant is a Central Goverttmenl employee- Every employee is bound to dectare his fomily members as per the sertice rules. If really Butti Satyanara.yana is his adoptive father, then he would hove entered the name of Butti Salyanarayana as his farher in his service records. It is also strange that the defendant failed to file the same. Hence, the delendant faited to prove thar he is adoptive son of Butti satyanarayana. wen the defendant faired ro estabrish that he is rhe adoptive son of Buni Satyanarayana. Then the Jural relarionship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the randrord and tenant is proved.-- ...ln the present case, the respondent/plaintif got issued notice, dated 27.10.2016 unfur &ction 106 of TransJer of property Act under Ex.Al terminating the lenoncy. This court is of view rhaf rhe reason for issuance of notice under sec. 106 of Trans/er of property Act is acceptable and the notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is maintainable and the finding of tte trial court on this issue is cotecl and does rat require any interference by this courr.,, l0'1. The first Apperrate court has further observed as hereunder:- "...this Court holds that appellant/defendants have no right and authority to continue to occupy the suit schedule proryrty t$,o mufuies. Hence, the appllant/defendonts are tiable to be evicted from the suit property proryrties within a period of six months as the appellant/defendant running business in the suit schedule propery... l I 7 LNA, J SA.No 240 ot2025 I l. Heard Sri G.V.V.A. prasannam, leamed c(,unsel for the appellant and Sri P. Nagesh, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record. 12. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court allowed the suit without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record and there.ore impugned j udgment and decree passed is unsustainable. Leamed (nunsel further contended that though plaintiff faited to establish the jural relationship of landlord an(l tenant between the plaintiff and defer clant, the trial court erroneously decreed the suit and the first appelrate court has also committed error in dismissing the appeal. Learned counsel further contended that despite placing on record, Exb.l and Ex.E2 regarding adoption of the defendant by brother of plantiff, both th,: Courts have ignored the same and came to erroneous conclusions an<l thus, prayed to allow the Seccnd Appeal.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial r]6u6 as well as the first Appellate court concurrently held that defend.rnt has failed to prove his cc,ntention that he is adopted son of brother of the /l\ 8 LNA, J SA.No.240 of2025 plaintiff and that the suit premises is ancestral prope{y and the plaintiff has no right to file a suit for eviction. Further, both the Courts held that legal notice dated 21.12.2018 @x.A-3) is properly issued and that plaintiffis entitled to the relief sought for by her. Both the Courts also held that plaintiff proved jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit which was affirmed an appeal by First Appellate Court.

14. In considered view of this Court, the learned counsel for appellant 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 qualiff as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court carurot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. 9 LNA, J SA.No.210 of2025

16. Further, in Gurdev Kaur w Kak/, the Apex Courr held that the High Court silting in Second Appeal cannot examinrr the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power unde r Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration.

17. Having considered the entire materiar availabre rln record and the hndings recorded by the fust Appellate Cour! this Court finds no ground or reaso n warranting interference with the said fir dings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the rrppellant are factual in natue and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second A:peal.

18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stirnd closed. I To, /ITRUE COPY// SD/., T. VIJAY KUMAR PEPUTY REGTSTRAR \ t;ECTION OFFICER 1 . The X Additiona. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderaba 1 2. Thev Junior Ci,ril Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRt. c. V. V. A. PRASANNAM, Advocate [OpLr(-;] 4. One CC to SRt. tr. NAGESH, Advocate [OpUCj L,/ 5. Two CD Copies kul/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:12106/2025 JUDGMENT SECOND APPEAL No.24O ot 2O25 _-,: - ' 18 rl[i k l'i,1T-, \,-. - <t^.. it '(\ ;)' ,'l J.' ,/ _^, ,/./ -r' DISMISSING THE SI;COND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS 7 1z 9,/zo lz f