The High Court · 2025

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Read with Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction respect of subject land more fully described in the schedule restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the petitioner till the disposal of the Second Appeal. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.898 admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 0-21 guntas situated at Manthani Village and Mandal and bounded by East: Land of Kanjerla Bullamma. West: Land of Ravikanti Ramadevi, North: Road, South Land of Ojjela Ramanna. lA NO: 1 OF 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 receive the Writ Petitions Orders bearing Nos. 1520 ol 2025 and 1523 of 2O2S on the file of this Honorable Court pending disposal of the Second Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri Puli Ashok Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Sri T. Ramachander Rao The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT t, l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.472 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.O3.2O24 in A.S.No.Ol of 2027 Gn the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, wherein the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2019 in O.S.No.-106 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil .Iudge , at Manthani, was confirmed.

2. Appellant herein is the plainrilf and respondcnts herein are defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as Lhey r,vere arrayed before [he trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case, ivl-rich lcct to filing of Lhe present second appeal as narrated in rhe plaint arc that Lhe defendants offered to sell an agricuitural land admeasuring Acs.0-2 1 gts in Sy.No.898, situated at Manthani (herein alter referred to as'suit schedule property'), in June, 1 999, and the plaintifl agrecd to purchase the same for a total sale consideral.ron of Rs.50,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.4O,000/- towards advance sale consideration; that the delendants immcdiately delrvered the possession of the property t() the plaintilT and orally agreed to 2 execute the sale deed whenever the balance sale consideration is paid by the plainriff; thar on 06. 1 t.2OO2, plaintiff pria ,n. balance sale consideration of Rs. 1O,OO0/- to the defendants and they in turn executed "sada Bynama,, in favour of the plaintiff, ackr-rowledging thc reccipt of lhe total salc, ct,nsideration and delivery of possession of the suit scheduie property; that later defendants approached the plaintiff in the month of March, 2003 and handed over the pattadar pass Book and title deed to Lhe plaintiff, in wl-rich the suit property was dul1. recorded jn her favour and aiso statcd Lhat Litle deed is suflicient to convey the title to her, as such she did not insist for execution of registered sale deed in her favour.

4. It is avcrred that when the plaintiff received a notice in the monLh of Ma1,, 2O 1O, from the ofiice of the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Manthani, in Record of Rights Appeat No.A/390/201O, filed against the proceedings of Tahsildar, Manthani, dated 20.11.2OO1, granting of 13-B and 13-C certificates under the Record of Rights Act in respect of the suit schedule property in her favour, and that she came to know that without her knowlcdge and consent, defendants obtained 13-B and 13-C certificates under the Record of Rights Act, in her favour on 20.11.200i and on the strength of such proceedings, defendants got the pattadar pass Book and Title a\ 3 deed in her favour. Therefore, plaintiff filed a suit uide O.S.No.106 of 2010, for specific performance of contract dated

06.l | .2OO2 and for direction to the respondents to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in her favour.

5. Defendant Nos.l and 2 filed the \.\,,riLten sLalemen[ and contended that they purchased the suil schedule property jointly from one Suvarna Chantamma, through a registered sale deed bearing document No.644 of 1995, in lr,hich the husband of the plaintiff is one of the attesting u.itncsscs; that defendant No.2 obtained a loan from State Bank of Hyderabad uide loan account No.MTL-235, by depositing rhe original sale deed bearing document No.544 of 1995, for security and started an offset printing press at Manthani; that subsequently, it was merged with loan account of the husband of the plaintiff bearing account No.MTL-254, and when the said accoun[ was closed in 2005, the husband of the plaintiff took the said document and got patta in favour of plaintiff undcr [?ecord of Rights bearing No.683 of 1989, dated 20. 11.2O01, therefore, defendants hled an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, uide Record of Rights Appeal No.A/390/20 10, dared 15.04.2010, against the mutation proceedings sanctioned in favour of plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the sr-iit. 1 ,\ 4

6. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial i) Whether there is ana contra.ct of sale agreement ulrcng plaintiff and dekndant s? ii) Whether the simple saLe deed doted 06.11.2002 is created by fabication as alleged by defendants. iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specifi,c performance ond injunction as praged for? iu) To what reliej?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 u,cre examined and trxs.Al to Ex.A13 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 and C.W.l were examined and trxs.B 1 to 84 1 r,i,ere marked.

8. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidencc placed on rccord, dismissed the suit uide judgment and dccree dated I5.04.2019. The trial Court while dismissing thc suit made the following observations:- "On pentsal oJ oral euidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 and Ex.Al on this aspect, it is cleorlg established that the plaintiff did not take ang steps bg woy of any means to call for the defendonts to execute a regular registered sale deed in her fauour since the dote of execution of Ex.A1 i.e., O6. I 1.2002 to till to filing of the suit. Hence, in absence of specific euidence noticing the fact, the Court could not belieue the uersiort of plainttff that she came to knout of fact of noticing the refusal on the parl of defendants to exea)te a regular registered sale deed. Hence, the time for limitation ntns from the date of execution of Ex.A1 and accordingly, the suit is baned by limitation. ,, 5 It is cLearlg showed that Ex.B I to Ex.B 1 1, Ex.B26, Ex.B34, Ex.B35 and Ex.B42, Ex.B43, Ex.B45 to Ex.B47 are public doanments and admitted to be true unless cogent euidence is adduced to discard their presumption. The plaintiff failed to adduce any such euidence to discard the presumption raised against such public documents. Plaintiff foiled to adduce anA cogent euidence to proue the uersion of P.W.4 ond EX.AL. Hence, in the obsence of such specific cogent euidence, this Court could not belieue the uersion of plointiff that the transaction in Ex.Al utas executed bg the defendonts as alleged bg the plaintifl.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintift prefcrred A.S.No.O1 ot 2O2l on the filc of lhe learned Senior Civil Judgc, Manthani. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, ulde judgment and decree dated 27 .O3.2O24 . In tLrc impugned judgment, the first Appeliate Court made the [ollowing obser-vations: - "The defendants denied the signatures on Ex.Al, and there is no mateial on record to shotu that the plaintiff had taken steps to foru,,ard the alleged signatures of defendants on DX.AI to the, handwriting expert in order to proue the said disputed signatures belong to dekndants No.l and 2. Hence, as per the ratio Laid doutn in Lakshmi Sreeniuasq Cooperatiue Building Societg (cited supro), the plaintiff has not succeeded in prouing tLe fact that tLe defendants signed on Ex.A1. Ttrc euidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the alleged u.titnesses to Ex.Al is nol consistent; os such, their euidence is not helpful to the plaintiff in establishing the execution of Dx.A1 bg the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants executed ] \ 6 Ex.Al itt her fauour. Therefore, the plaintiJf is not entitled to specifi.c perfonnance of the contract- Furlher, ctdmittedlg, Ex.A2 to AB were cancelled; hence, the plainttff fa.iled to establish her incidental outnership and lanufttl possession ouer the suit schedule propeftA as on the dote of Jlling of the suit."

10. Challenging thc aloresaid judgment and decree passed by the first Appcllate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 1 1. He ard Mr.Mirza Baig, lcarned counsel fcrr the appellant Perusecl the recorcl.

12. Learned counscl for the appellant submitted that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have not considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in proper perspcctive and came lo erroneous conclusions. He further submittcd that trx.A1 clearly shows that there rvas a contract o[ sale in rcspcct of the suit schedule property arrd it was signed by both the respondcnts in the prcsence of attestors and Exs.A2 to A13 prove the entitlement and physical possession of appcllant to the subject land. He further submitted that both the Courts have come to erroneous conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation by considering the date of Ex.Al, without considering the subsequent development of issuance of 13-B and 13 C certificates. He also submitted that the trial Court as 7 well as the hrst Appellate Court failed to appreciate the said fact and dismissed the suit and first Appeal erroneously Hence, he prayed to allow the Second APPeal.

13. Perusa,l of the record would disclose that the trial Court has observed that plaintiff has not taken steps for execution of the sale deed pursuant to the agreement of the sale dated 06.ll.2002. Further, the suit was filed in the year 2010, therelore the suit is barred by limitation. Both the Courts concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 06' 1 l.2OO2, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for Specihc Performance of Agreement of Sale. The first appellate Court has also held that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are alleged witnesses to Ex.A1, is not consistent, as such their evidence is not helpful to the plaintiff in establishing the execution of Ex.A1 by defendants. Hence, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants executed Ex.A 1 in her favour and the plaintiff failed to estabiish her ownership and lawful possession over the suit schedule property. L4 . In the light of facts and circumstances of the case and the observations of trial Court as well as the hrst appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to make 8 out any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and decree

15. In considered opinion of this Court, learnecl counsel lor appellant failed to raise any substantial question of raq, to be decicled by this Court in this second appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as tl-re substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 c.P.C

16. It is well settlecl principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 10O C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere rvith the concurrent hndings arrived at by the Courts below, which are baseo on proper appreciation of Lhe oral and documentary evicience on record.

17. Further, in Gurd.eu Kaur o. Kakil, the Apex Court held that the I{igh Courl 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 substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration

18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as u.ell as the \ (2007) 1 SCC s46 i I I 9 Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent Iindings, under Section 100 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.

19. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER '1 . The Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Manlhani z teAdditional Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, Peddapally District (Erstwhile Karimnagar District).

3. One CC to Sri. \Airza AipzAli Baig, Advocate [OPUC] 4. one CC to Sri Puli Ashok Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T. Ramachander Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies DUPSL M. HIGH COURT DATED:23l06/2025 ,; ' .,\ -::: --:'-_ .: .; l-\;.-.\ __ .. ,-,,...1 r:. JUDGMENT SA.No.472 oI 2024

1.. 02 sEP 206 \ :- S.A. DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION 'l) q