The High Court · 2025

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 of all fu(her proceedings in O.S.No. 117 of 2016 dated. 09t11t2022 including the E.P.No.41 of 2025 on the file of the Honourable Court of principat Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, Pending disposal of main Second Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRt. S CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: V RAO PADALA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE, I IIGI-I COU RT FOR TI{E STATE OF T [ I-A.NGANA AT IIYDERABAD TFIE, I{ONOLT R,^.BLII SR I J i,rS'I'ICE RENU I{, YARA S.A.No.344 of 2025 24th Nor.ember,2025 Betu,een: l(oppula l(alidas De sh r: ttirvar S hakuntl'rale AND Appellar-rt Rcspo ndcn t ORDI]R: I Ieard N{r. S.(-l-ranrlra Sekhar", Iearrrecl counsel [ir. i t: appellant anc,l \{r. \'.I{ao l)adala, lcrrnccl counscl ftrr rhc rcspondcnt

2. 'l'his Sccond ,\ppcal is prcferrccl agericvecl br. Llr juclement and clccrce datcd 03 03 2025 passcd in A.S.No.il ol 2023 ,r. rhe lcurncd Prrncipal District Juclgc, r\clil:rbad, .vhercb1, rhc lczrmccl ) rJge confirmcd 2 the decrce and judg,menr passccl br thc learncd ptincipal Junior Civil Judgc, i\dilabad, in O.S.No 11: ol2016,datcd 09.1 1.2022. 3 'l'he brieF facts .[ rhc case arc rhar rhe rcsp.,dcnt plainufF is the patcrnal aunt oF thc appellant-delcndan t. Thc n,rother of the rcsponder_rr rvas thc otiginal owncr of the land ro an extent of r\c.13 02 gunras tn I(apparla Village, 'famsi N,{andal, r\dilabad District and she cxccured a registcrcd salc clcccl in [a'.ur .f t.c: rcsp.r_rde,t alicnating Ac.4_1,1 glrntas o[ land in Survo No.20 I/,\. Subsequently, when the respondent-plain tiff was in r.recd of monc1,, she intended to sell thc properrl ro the appellanr lor a salc consideration o[ Rs.9-5,000/_. Thc appeilant deFendanr paid an am()unt.f lls.15,000/- ro*",ards adr.ancc and the rcmaining amount has agrecd to be paicl at the trme of regrstradon. But, thc appcllant ar-rd his latl-rcr larlecl ro pay the balance sale c<;nsidcrarion and also tricr n.t deh'er the vacant p()sscssron .f thc surt schcdule properry., and thcrcbr., thc ap1>cllart dcfendant has violated the condition k) pav the balance arn()Lrnt .. or befrrrc 09.04.199g Aggrievcd bv rhe same, the responde nt-plainuff filed O.S.ir-o. 11] of 2016 belore the Principal Junior (ii'il J udge, Adrlabad, secking rccovery \- \/'! / 3 of posscssion of land in Sun cy No.201/,\, admcasuring \( '+ 1+ guntas, siruatcd at I(epparla Village,'famsi NIandal, Adilabad I)istr r - + [)ur-inq trial,tl-re respondent-plainu[l hcrse lF s()t exarlr rcd as PW. 1 arrcl on hcr bchelf, P\Xi2 rvas cxaminecl and Llxs-r\1 [o A16 ';cre mer]icd. I'hc rppcllant tr-rt htmselI cxaminec] as DW1 and Iilx.lll L r:1-rosition of plainriff in (-.(1.No.377 ot 2005 nas rnarlied. 'Ihe trial (-, I Lrt cramined rhc oral rnd docutnerrtart' evidence on rccclrcl, decrccc' rhc surt l.'zZ lLLdgnrcrrt d.atecl 09.11.2022. Challengrng thc same, the clt cnclent hled .\.S.Nci.ti of 2023 on thc file o[ the Principal DisrrictJu,l;,:, -\dilabecl l hc Iirrst ,\ppcllate CourL uide judg;mcnt datcd 03.03.2025 , isrrrssccl the rppcal rnd con{lrmed thc judgn-rcnt ancl clectee datcd 09 1] 11022 passed bi rhc trill (,our:t. ,'\ggrieved br, the juclgmcnrs and dccrce s :lssccl bv thc rriel (.c.,rrrt as rvcll as liir:st Appellatc Cor.rrt, the prcscnt Sc :oncl Appeal h:Ls b,- cr-r filccl bt' the appellant defendant reising I t' t,rllouing s r-rLr s tan t iel qucs lrons oI lau, l \\'hetl'rcr thc finding <-,1 the Trial Court tn passrr'1 clcclee in lar.our of respondent and finding ci ,\ppcllate (-ourt in confirmilg the same is pcn,crs,: !-- 4 b. l7herher the suit is marnrainable for asking a reLef of recovcqr ol possession of suit schcclule properh,, w-lthout anv ancrllarr rclicf i.et., c,leclarauon of tidc? c. \X/hether thc rcspondcnr !l()r titlc or.er-thc suit schedulc pfoperfi' basing on a rcgrstcred salc dced ancl cntrtes rn rcveflue records in rhc abscncc of establishing thc fact of exccution of sale dccd ancl as rvell as the lact of tegal nght ol the executant o{, registcrecl salc decd to alienate the same? d. Whcthcr thc appcllant Lrecarnc thc orvner o[ rhc -suit schedule pr()pcrtv bv r.irtue of aclversc ;rosscssion and the surt filcd bv thc respondenr was barrcd bv limrtarion ?

5. 'I'he Hon'ble Supremc (_out oF Trdia tn Hemavathi v. rrombegowdal hcid d'rat F{rgh Court can c. rcrtein a rcgular second appeal purely.n a 'subsrantial' cluestr.n .[ larv not c]vcn a q.esti()n of larv or a question oF facr. Iiurrhcr, as per thc juclgmcnt oI this (.ourt in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Viiaya Laxn?, thc ,\pex Courr in Gurdev r{aur v. rfuld held rhat rhc I Iigh (iourt sitring irr Sec<.rrcl APpear c2rlrn()r cxamine the cvidence once agarn as a tl-rird trial Court and the porver '120251s scc aaz '? 2\4 sCC online TS t86 '{2007) I SCC s46 5 under Sccrion 100 cPC rs vcry [mited and it can be ext:rc scd only rvherc a sul:strnrial ciucstion oI Larv is raiscd and fell for constcl( 1 ttion' (r 'l he scopc o{' the second appeal is lirnitcd t thc exterlt of consirlcring onIt sr,r[rstanual cluestions oi larv and fl()t n) 1e clrlestions of l1$. es.rinst rhc backclrop o[ thc said guidclincs laicl dorv:' bt' thc I I on',blc Suprcrnc ( -on rt, :. Lclrr]ccl counscl lor thc appcllant r.idc substantral ,-luestrorr of len, 'e' has challcrrgccl the concurrent findings of the lrirsr 'tppcllate (-ourt ,.r.ith rcsPccr ro thc urlc o[ rhe rcspondenr on the 1 r-sis of F]x.A1' rcgtstcrcrl srle dcccl z,zrle documenL No.29/2002, datcci -t9 01'1992, Lrut c[d nr,r claborate as to h()w the said flrnding is perversc. g. 'l hc srrbsrantial question of lau, 'b' is about maLr r ,Lnabilirr, of snit tor rtlLe I ol- rccor.ctv of prtssession of the suit schedulc I lI)PCIfi' rvithout anr urrcillurr rclie f r.c., cleclaratton of Ut1e. Out of total Ll l,rnt of Ac.13.[J2 gunr:rs oi lancl, thc m()ther of the rcsponclcnt has r cnatcd r\c'1 1'l gr:ntas in llrr or-Lr oi the rcspondcnt, rvho is hcr daughtt - ()\"rlcrship of rcslron.lcnt's m()thcr and cxistencc of rcgistcred sale lccd arc ot in dispr"rtc- [.Iou,ever, the rcspondent is dent,ing the genut cness of lix.,\1 rel5isrercd salc dcecl and questionrng the rishr and tirl: ,lf rcspondcnt's 6 mother alienating Ac.4 14 suntas of land in fa'our of the responclcnt \X/hcn once P\\'1 has dcposccl abor-rt t[.re gcnuincness o1. I]x.,\1, the br:rdcn of proof rs on thc appcllant clclcnclant to pl-o'c that ltx..\ 1 is a labricated sale deed bv producine conr.rncing oral or documentarv cr.idcnce. But the appellanr-de lendant has rclied onlv upon ltx.B1- ceruficd copy of deposiuon of plaintif[ in C.C.No.377 ot] 200.5. Thcre is no indcpcndent oral or documcntan er.idcocc r() provc rhat lrx.Ai is a false and fabricated document (). Thc substanual qucsdon of larv 'c' is clependcnr upon 'b' u'itl-r rcsPcct to ritle oI the rcsponder-rt over thc suit schedule propcrt\i. When execution of lrx.A1-sale dccd is provcd as akcaclv hclcl lrv thc trial (.ourt as u,ell as the liirst Appcllate (-ourt, therc rs no doubt es to rhc trtlc of thc rcspondcnt plaintiff or.er the surt schcdulc propcrtr'. \{'hcn the trrle is not io dispute, the responclcr-rt has rigl-rt to scck lcco\rcri: of possession s,irhout sccking declaration of title. ThcrcFcrrc, no fhult can Lrc firuncl u.ith the judgments of 1,, r\ppellate end tnal (-ourts. Lastlv, thc substantial questlon of law with respect to the ach,ersc 1-rossession of thc suit schedule propcrty b), the respondent, the dtle of the respondent has to be acknowledged by the appeilant in the first instance to claim adversc 7 possessr()n. In rlrc insrant casc, the appcilant is denyrnr tre utle of the rcsponclcnt rx.cr suit scheclulc propcrtv and therctbrt., r. clucstr,,n ,,I adr-crsc l.rosscssiorr (1()cs n()t arisc, 1(l lrr r ic'.,, oi tlrc fi rrcs()1ng discussion ar-rd in vierv ot 1c c()ncu rrclr f firdings g^,c, br rhc rri.l C<>urr as wcll as lrirst ,\pp.J r t.,: Court rvirh respcct r() thc titlc Of thc respondcnt, therc is no evidcnct o support the colrten11()n of pcrr-c|sirr,, he nce this court secs flo rc2Lsorr r , cnte rtaill thc seconcl :rltpc eI

11. In Le-*trlr, thc Sccond ,\ppcal is clismissecl rr ,he srage oF adtrission. No costs \ hsccll:rrrc. Lrs I)cttuo.s, if anv, pending in this petiti, rr, shall stand ckrsecl To, //TRUE COPY// ST /.,T.VIJAY KUMAR Ut,I UTY REGISTRAFi ,,.; li :CT|ON OFFTCER District . '1. The principai 2. one cc to SRr. s 3 one cc ro sRr V *ollo:o"t^HAR "a"onu Adilabad (with records if any) Advocate foPuc] ) PADALA Advocate [oPUc] ASJ'#" cD copies ?"t, HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 JUDGMENT SA.No.344 ot 2025 /-:' ,1.:k.) ,,i ',J' :i) I ,e I1 i ?0?[ z o * * F',''r-\',.-.j- DTSMISSING THE APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION fP\c,, t lo [,-\,.-