The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHEITT SECOND APPEAL No.336 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is hled challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 in A.S.No.99 of 2Ol9 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, whereby and where under tlre judgment and decree dated 76.02.2018 in O.S.No .197 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar was conhrmed.

2. Heard Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The appellant herein is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

4. The brief averments of the suit are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 197 of 2010 for declaration declaring the plaintiff as owner, for mandatory injunction, for mesne prohts in respect of plot bearing No.16 admeasuring 242 square yards in survey No. 152 with house bearing No.9-8- 1 14, sifuated at Ramnagar, Karimnagar District (herein after referred as "Suit Schedule Propert5/). It is averred that plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from father of defendant under registered sale deed uid"e document No.5296 of 1976 daLed 23.12.L976 and since the date of purchase, he has been in possession of suit property 2 s.ANffi6:flkls which was open plot at that point of time; t}lz 1 plaintiff is a conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C., worked in several places z r d he could not visit the plot for iong time; that on LO.O2.20LO he r isited suit plot and found the defendant raised tin shed in the suit 1 lot for which a door number 9-8-114 was given by the Municipal ,.uthorities and when the plaintiff questioned by the defendant, she ; eswered that it is plot No.8 and not plot No. 16 and the same was giv: r by her father; that a panchayat was held and the defendant prorr sed vacate the suit plot, however, she filed suit in O.S.No.9l of 2Ol J and obtained injunction order against the plaintiff. On 18.O5.2C O, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant by calling upc n her to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule f roperty but the defendant refused to receive the same. Hence, the sr.L L. 5. Defendant filed a written statement denyinp, the averments made in the plaint and further stated that father cl defendant and others purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.3O gur tas in survey No.1O52 situated at industrial area, Ramnagar, Karir rnagar through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1346 rf 1976, dated

25.05.1976 and the same was developed into plots I td were sold to different persons and kept one plot each with them; that her father has given plot No.16 to her and she constructed tin : hed in the said land in the year 2000 and the Commissionr: Municipality, Karimnagar assigned door No.9-8- I 14 and issued demand notice 3 LNA, J 5.A.No.336 of 2025 defendant for payment of propert5z tax from O1.O4.2OO2 to

03.03.2004 and since the date of assessment the defendant have been paying the propert5r tax to municipality; that she has obtained tap connection and also paid water charges and ownership certificate was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal CorporaLion, Karimnagar on 2O.O2.2O|O. It is further averred that her father expired on 06.09.201O on that she filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2010 on the hle of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.249 of 201O against the plaintiff uide order dated

09.03.2010 and thus prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed following ISSUeS: O Wrcther tlLe plainttff is entitled for declaration as praged for? (ii) Whether the plointiff is entitted for mandatory injunction as praged for? (iit) Whettrcr the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? (iu) To uhat relieJ? During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.l and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, and also examined P.W.2. Defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 and got marked Exs.B.l to B.54. *.. -.) 4 LNA, J S-A.No.j36 of 2025

8. The trial Court on due consideration of oral er d documentary evidence decreed the suit on 16.02.2018 declaring; the plaintiff as owner of suit schedule property and further direc _, d defendant to handover vacant possession to plaintiff within zL period of two months from the date of order. The trial Court whi e decreeing the suit made following cbservations: "(i) The plaintiff hns filed the docum.ent Ex.A C.C of sale deed uide doanment No.S296 qf 976 under u.thiclt he hns purcLnsed plot No.16 tL,.t suit Iand herein in uhich the sam.e boun ) tries mentioned in the suit schedule propertA h.os ,een mentioned. Ex.A.2 is C.C of sale deea tide document No.1347 of 1976 under tohich pc,t nam Chandraiah has exeatted sale deed. in fuauc r of one Sunke narallena has purcha-sed :! 8.44 square gard^s of land. in surueg No.1OS2 utit ,, the boundaies east: B. Sathaiah plot No.16, u,e ::: 3A feed tuide road, nortfu 14 feet uide rotul and south: the land. of uendor. (iil fhd under Ex.A.l, the plaintiff purchalz I the land. Ex.A.2 is filed. to shout that hb adi :cent land owner utlase name is shown in his bour Cary on western side o.s Sunke Narayona, in his sale deed in the boundaries on eastem side, the ptot No. 16 of B. Satlaiah is mentioned. a )otla Sathaiah A none other than uendor of plaintit.' and father of defendant. He l:us also filed_ Ex.t 3 to sholu that his uendors aLso executed sq.le d,z d_ in Jauour of Kalolotntlq Rama Rao in the suit :1 rueg number uln is hauing the land on eastem :r le of plaintiff herein. TLe plointiff mad.e endeat >r tr.t 5 s.n.N86:l!;rls shotD tt@t no u)here in the suit schedule properties tte nnme of defendant is not m.entioned.. iii. Admittedlg, the defendant lns not produced ang title document to slnut that her fath.er gifi.ed tLe suit propertg to LLer, there is no such docum.ent of ter father produced to shou; that in their familg settlemcnt the suit plot allotted to her. Tlere is no such tDill deed or anything in fauour of defendant to shou that slre ua.s allotted th,e suit plot. iu. Admittedlg, initiallg the dekndant ha.s fiIed the suit in O.S.ra.9l of 2O1O for perpetllal injunction again-st the plaintiff lerein in uhich she stoted that she rb ln possession of plot No.8 and the plot number of defendant is plot No.16. The plaintilf herein at the time of ftling of th.e present su,I also contenl.ed that u-then he quest[oned the defendant about the occupation of suit plot she stated thnt it i-s plot No.8 and. not plot No.16. Howeuer, the defendont tns frled am.endtnent petition and. made carrection of plot number as 76 instead of ptot number 8. In fact, she totallg clnnged the suit sabject matter bg altering her pbt number. The reard clearlg sLlrlrs that initially she put her claim only in plot No.8 but number 16. The pleadings of plaintiff in the ptaint and started to claim plot rutmber 16. Tlrc pleadings of plaintijf in the plaint and. also the claim of defendant at initial stoge clearlA estoblistes that the defendant claimed. plot number I onlg but not plot number 16. When stte come to knou.t tlnt if she put up a claim bg stating plot No.9 she will not get ang success tlen she chnnged her uersion and started to clatm plot No.16. The anduct of defendant 1 6 s.o.*&6:fl;ls shou.rs she is chnngirtg her uersion from tiln ) to iu. The defendant hos filed the sale deed oi her father onlg. As already stated aboue slrc fu: not filed title deed of her. Ex.B.2 is thc sale dtr 7 of her father shou.ting thnt lrcr father along uith I tree other persons purchased O.3O guntas of land The pentsal of this document shou.rs euen at tle hr e of their purchase itself there are plots from 1 tt 18, the JatLLer of defendant and three (, ?.ers purchased the plots from 3 to 16. The plair t ff is olso admitting thb document. In foct it i:; Iink d.oanment of plaintiff herein. He is claimir, t the suit plot from the father of dekndant and ; tree others in hk sale deed, the plot No.16 is ct, arlg mentioned. u. T'he documents filed bg th.e defendant :l otLs thet she patd property tax receipts for the \ ruse number 9 I 1 14 from the gear 2OO2 till i ) 16. Basing on ounership certificate issuerl b11 mun-icipctlitg and. propertg tax receipts st t is claiming title ouer the propertA. As olready :; zted aboue she ha-s nel filai single piee of euiden,-e to shouL that she got title ouer the property. Sle has taken plea that the suit propertg retained_ ln her father and he giuen this propertg to her. The registered sale deed of plaintiff clearlg shous that plot No.16 sold. to hirn- The defend.ant Lts to prod-uce better title to get the relief of perp tual injunction and to rebut the case of plaintifJ She hns not produced ang d.oatment to proue htl title ouer the propertg- ui. The careful souting of u-tritten statemz tt of defendant and euidence of defendant sluttt s tlwt 7 LNA, J S.A.No.336 of 2025 no where in tte written statement she claimed the suit propertg bg uag of aduerse Possession. At th.e time of arryments the defen-dant @unsel argued tlnt the dekndant has perfected Ler title bg aduerse possession and sle rls in possession o/ suit propertg for a long period. In absence of ang pleadings thi,s aurt cannot take into consideration of aduerse possession but in the interests oJ iustice thjs cnurt Lns looked into this aspect also-" g. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.02.2018, defendant hled appeal in A.S'No.99 of 2Ol9 before the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

10. The hrst appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence and material placed on record dismissed the appeal uide order dated

21.10.2024. While dismissing the suit, the first appellate Court made following observations: 'Firstlg lrc pleaded title bg filing <t suit. Secondlg, hc bsued a legal notbe claiming hi.s propertg. Thirdlg he restored to mediation in the presence of elders. Fourth)g he examined the mediator besides filing tle title doanment- As a settled lanu a Regi,stered Sale deed rtould preuail over otLler tgpe of onuegance the sale deed of defendant/ Naragana hr.s to be giuen credence. On tlle otler land tlere is no docum.ent of oumership in fouour of defendant/ Nirmala- In such case, there is no reason to di.scard the euidence and ca-se of the ptaintiff/ Naragana. Appellant/ Defendant in O.5.No.197 of 2O1O failed to proue her \ 8 LNA, J S.A-No.336 oJ 2025 contention. On the oth.er hand, i 1e responcient/piaintifJ-/Narayana successJL tg establbhed title to the properly and fs ocanpation bug Smt. Nirmqlla ittegallg., 1 1. lrarned counsel for the appellant would sub: it that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court did not apprec.r rte the oral and documentar5z evidence placed on record by the ap: :liant in proper perspective and decreed the suit filed against th,: respondent on perverse findings. Learned counsel for the appellar t would further submit that trial Court as well as first appellate Cc,r trt -i"...0 ,r-rd misinterpreted the documents hled by the appellan t uide Exs.B.l to B.54 which clearly establish the long standinll possession of appellant and had come to erroneous findings. Lear ned counsel for the appellalt u,ould further submit that except Ii r.A. 1 / sale deed dated 20. 12.1976, thc respondent did not file any rther document evidencing his title. this aspect was not properly af,.,reciated by the tria-l Court as well as hrst appellate Court, more s( when the suit was filed in the year 2OlO. He also submitted t]lat the respondent has not filed link documents of his title document i e., Ex. A. 1 and therefore, both the Courts ought have held that the rr spondent failed to establish his title over the suit schedule propertr' In support of his contention, learned counsel for tl.e appellz,r Lt relied upon 9 LNA, J 5.A.No,336 of 2025 judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Ra/dsthan & Ors and Shia Dagal & anotheft and thus prayed to allow the appeal.

12. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court categorically held that respondent/plaintiff purchased suit schedule property under Ex.A. l/sale deed from father of appellant/defendant and whereas the appellant/defendant has failed to hle any document to prove his title over the suit schedule property except filing property, electricity, water bills and payment receipts which do not confer any title. The trial Court specifically observed that the appellant/defendant has taken stand that she was the owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from her father and subsequently at the time of arguments she has taken new plea that she perfected the title by way of adverse possession which is contrary to principal contention in the suit.

13. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to execution of sale deed/Ex.A. 1 by father of appellant/defendant in respect of suit schedule property in the year 1976 which clearly shows title of respondent/plaintiff, whereas though the appellant/defendant claimed title over the suit schedule property, she did not place on record any document evidencing her title over the suit schedule property except filing of demald notices receipts of property tax, ' 2019 Law Suit (sc) 1470 l0 s.A.Nffi6:l!;/s electricity arrd water charges which do not confer ar . title in favour of appellant/defendant. 14. In so far as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Corr t in State oJ Rajasthan & Ors and Shiv Dagal & anothe:. is concerned, admittedly father of appellant/defendant along v,th two others acquired an extent of Ac.0.3O guntas under regist:red sale deed No.l347 11976 dated 25.05.1976 ar,.d developed sai(l larrd into plots and one of the plot was sold to the respondent 7 plaintiff under Ex.A. 1, thus, clear link has been establishe<l and in fact appellant/defendant is also rel5ring upon the said I r k document of her father. Therefore contention raised by learned ;ounsel for the appellant is untenable and judgment of the Hon,ble \pex Court has no application to the present case. 15. In considered opinion of this Court, the learnej counsel for the appellant taiied to raise any substantial question ol- je w to be decided by this Court in this second appeal. In fact, all the pr runds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualiff as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section lOO ( .p.C. 16. lt is wel[ settled principle by a catena of decirrj :ns of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal hled under Section tO0 C.p.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent hndings r rrived at by ttre first appellate Court, which are based on proper ag,1 recialion of the ora.t and documentary evidence on record. l1 LNA, J 5.A.No.336 ol2025

17. Further, it Gurdeo Kaur u' Kak12, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third triai 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 hndings recorded by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference withthesaidconcurrentfindingsoflrrstappellateCourt,under Section 1OO C.P'C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the respondents arefactualinnatureandnoquestionoflaw'muchless'a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. , the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly

19. Hence dismissed at the stage of admission' No costs' Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed' SD'-P'GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 ,/TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER I ,n" , ooon,onal District Judge at Karimnagar' The Additional senior crviiiu"oil 't cj;:,?;U sRL p eHnNU FiilKASH' Advocate [oPUC] T 1 2 3 4 'z 1zoozl I Supreme Court Cases 546 b Two CD CoPies r"im-n"gat, [Yj!h records'if anv] HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 I /-1 .4-7,i. ..'i' '( '' /i-.1' ll (') i''J \i.; .'---/ ..,Y .:.. +'':\ 1l - \.: J'A o^ I | 1'l 20/F Z )r)ATC',l r:(\ x JUDGMENT SECOND APPEAL No.336 of 2025 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION. l:1 (, \y',