The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl G UMAPA HI SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 SRI VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI The Court delivered the following: Judg THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B. .MADI{USUDI{AN RAO A 4 2o2 JUDGMEIY T: The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.146 of 2013, d ted 26.06.2019, on the fite of the learned Senior Civil Judge. Sangar dy, wherein the suit filed by the appellant for declaration, recovery of possession against defendant No.3 came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant is the plainti defendants in the suit, for con and the respondents are the nience sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are ar yed in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.103 in Survey N .7E and 7EE to an extent of 300 square yards sltuated at Sriram Na ar Colony, Patelguda Village at Sangareddy Taluq. Medak District, ha ing purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing d cument No.6574l1985, dated

06.06.1985. The defendant No.1 i the GPA holder of the original pattadar, who was an agriculturist an in possession of the property in Survey No.7E and 7EE. The pattada have executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of G. uryanarayana Murthy (D 1) on

30.05.1985 y/de registered docume No.15211985 registered in the office of SRO, Sangareddy, Medak District. Defendant No.1 has 2 BRMR,J No.46-2020 ^S developed the land in Survey No.7E and 7EE into housing plots along with the other adjacent lands and named as Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda Village, Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, sold the plots to different persons and the plaintiff is one of the purchasers. The plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property without interference of any one. When the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property, he came to know from his nerghbouring plot owners that some unknown person occupied their plots illegally by removing the stcnes !a!d dor rn around the sttit sehedule oroperty' The plaintiff received the information from the Tahsildar Office that defendant No.2 is in possession of Survey Nos.7E and 7EE. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have no right in the suit schedule property in any manner to occupy and to enter their names in the concerned records.

4. Defendant No.1 was set ex parte in the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the contesting parties and they contended thar Machkuri Pedda Kistaiah was the absolute owner of Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.7/A. Pratap Reddy and another purchased the said land for valid consideration. Machkuri Narsing Rao S/o. Late Narayana was the absolute owner of land in Survey No.7/AA to an extent of Ac.O.35 guntas. Defendant No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed v/de document No.2810/2001. Survey No.7/E/1 to an extent of Ac.0.18 guntas belongs to Machkuri Nara';,363 S/o. Ramaiah, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the 3 BRMR,.' AS.No.46 2O2O same through registered sale deed. Survey No.7/E/2 to an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas belongs to Machkuri istaiah S/o. Ramaiah. Defendant No.3 has purchased the same thro gh registered sale deed. Survey No.7/EE to an extent of Ac.o.36 gts. belongs to Machkuri Papaiah S/o. Venkaiah, Defendant No.3 has purc ased the same under registered sale deed. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in possession of Survey Nos.7/AA, 7/E/7, 7/E/2 and 7lEE ince the date of their purchase Plaintiff is not in possession of the s it plot at any point of time.

6. The Triat Court has framed th following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is the property? If so, whether the relief of declaration as owner of the suit schedule he plaintiff is entitled for rayed for? 2) Whether the plaintiff is en possession from defendant itled to recover the vacant No.3 ? 3) To what relieP

7. The plaintiff himself is exa ined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant No.2 is e amined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to 828 and Exs.C1 and C2 are marked in his cross- examination.

8. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record found that the plaintiff failed to prove his ase for declaration, recovery of possession from defendant No.3 and dismissed the suit.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appe lant submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the eviden of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and 4 BRMR,J AS.No 46 2O2O A2 and also failed to observe that the documents filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Exs.Bl to 813 are subsequent to Ex.A1, Exs.Bl4 to B24 are prior to Ex.A1 and wrongly placed reliance on the documents filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3. 9-2. It is stated in the cause title of the Appeal that respondent No.1 is not a necessary party in the Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 3 submits that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for declaration, recovery of possession from defendant No.3. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the a ppella nt/o la intift as he failed to prove the case.

11. The points for consideration in the appeal are 1) Whether the plaintiff could able to prove that he is entifled to seek a declaration, recovery of possession from defendant No.3 ? 2) Whether the judgment anC decree passed b.; tho learned trial Court suFfers From any illegality or perversitv? Point No.1:

12.1. The case set up by the plaintiff in his plaint is that the original pattadar is in possession of the property in Survey No.7E and 7EE, has executed a GPA in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on 30.05.1985 yrde registered document No.15211985. DefengAnt No.1 5 BRMR,J AS.No.46 2O2o has developed the land converted hem into house plots in Survey No.7E and 7EE along with the adja nt lands and named the area as Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda V llage, Sanga Reddy Taluk, Medak District. The plaintlff has purchased Ex.AI on 06.06.1985 vrde registe the suit schedule property under d sale deed document bearing No.6574l1985 registered in the offic of the SRO, Sangareddy, Medak District. Plaintiff has laid stones aro nd the suit schedule property in order to protect the same from the ncroachers. When he visited the suit schedule property. he came to know from his neighbouring plot owners that some unknown person ill gally occupied his plot.

12.2. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance C rtificate and Ex.A3 is the Copy of Market Value Assistance, dated 1 .03.2013 issued by Registering Officer, Sangareddy. The pla intiff ted in his cross-examination that one Seeta Ram Reddy S/o. Lakshma eddy was the pattadar of Survey No.7/E and 7/EE, he did not fite an document to show that the said Seeta Ram Reddy was the pattadar the Survey Nos.7/E and 7/EE as was mentioned in Ex.Al, he do not were made in the said survey num emember as too how many plots rs. It is not mentioned in the plaint that Seeta Ram Reddy was th pattadar of Survey Nos.7/E and 7/EE, a?ter 20L2 he did not visit the suit plot as the matter is sub judice. He do not know whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 made any structures in the suit plot, he did not make his vendor as party because the suit plot is purchased sed on GPA and he did not file 1 6 BRMR,J AS.No.46-202O copy of GPA. He do not know whether defendant Nos'2 and 3 sold the entire land in Survey No.7 by dividing into house sites and the plot purchasers are in possession, and he is not in a position to identify the suit plot. Plaintiff further went to say in his cross-exa m ination that he did not make the plot purchasers as party to the suit and he did not make the persons who constructed the houses as parties to the suit'

13. Ex.81 is the origlnal registered sale deed, dated 03 10'2002 in favour of V.Neeraja (defendant fio.3) wla' V Madhava R-eddy (Defendant No.2) vlde document No.6449l2OO2 which goes to show that Neeraja has purchased agricultural land in Survey No 7/6' admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., from its earlier owner and possessor i'e'' Machkuri Papaiah S/o. Venkaiah. Ex.82 is another sale deed executed by (1) Machkuri Narayana s/o.Veeranna (2) Machkuri Narsinga Rao s/o.Narayana ln favour of V.Neeraja (D3) W/o. Madhava Reddy (D2) in Survey No.7/es, admeasuring Ac.O.36 gts., through registered sale deed, dated 17.05.2001 vlde document No.281O/2001 Ex 83 is the original registered sale deed executed by M'Ramulu and two others in favour of V.Madhava Reddy (D2) vlde document No.14558/2007 dated L2.0-/.2OO7, admeasuring Ac.0.9 gts., in Survey No.7/atl; Ac'0'09 gts., in Survey No.7/a; Ac.0.17 gts., in Survey No.7/a/2, in total admeasuring Ac.0.35 gts. Ex.84 is the Ratification Deed dated

07.05.2013 for Ex.82 document where under four other parties have joined the sale deed and executed the document' 7 BRMR,J AS.No.46 2020

14. Exs.B14 to 824 are the Pah nies from 1983 till 2012, which goes to show that the suit schedule Machkoori's family as pattadars a defendant Nos.2 and 3 are record survey number as in the name of d possessors till the names of d. The name of the plaintiff's vendor is not shown nor recorded in the pahanies. The plaintiff's counsel has cross-examined defend nt No.2 at length and has got marked Exs.C1 and C2 to show that Cases (LGC.Nos.103 and 1O4 of 2 e is a party to the Land Grabbing 13), it is also elicited from the cross-examination that the Land Gr bing Court has passed an order not to create any third party intere in respect of schedule plots on

19.11.2013 (Ex.C1 is the certified co in LGC.No.103 of 2073; Ex.C2 is t y of order in I.A.No.1046 of 2013 e certified copy of the order in I.A.No.1047 of 2013 in LGC.No.104 o 201 3 ).

15. As the plaintiff has filed suir for declaration and. recovery of possession against defendant No.3, he burden lies on him to prove the same.

16. The Supreme Court in Mor n Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Avirar observed that "20, ... in a suit [for declara succeed they must do so on the st ionl if the plaintiffs are to ngth of their own title. " L7. In Nagar Palika, lind v. lagat ingh" the supreme has observed that: I ArR 1959 sc al (1995) 3 scc 426 J 'z .J" 8 I]RMR,J AS No.46 2O2O " The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff- respondent. ... In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit."

18. In Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Societys, the Supreme Court has observed that: "ln a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plarntiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plarntiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found agarnst them, in the absence of establishment of the plaintiffls own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited".

19. The plaintiff has relied on Exs.Al to A3 documents, he failed to examine the GPA holder (D1) or the owner of the property, so also he falled to examine any of the witnesses or produced any document to show that the vendor of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. In the absence of any evidence or material from the plaintiff's side, it is hard to believe that defendant No.3 has 2ccupied r (2014) 2 scc 269 9 BRMRJ AS No 46 2020 the suit schedule property. Plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for a declaration and recovery of session from defendant No.3. Hence, point is answered accordingly Point l+o.2:

20. In view of the reasons in poi No.1, I hold that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the ptaintiff has failed to prove his case and th re is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial C urt. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, poin is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, Appeal is dismiss d wrthout costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous titions if any, are closed. //TRUE OPYII SD/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR F\, SECYION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble J (For His Lordshi stice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao s kind Perusal) To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Senior Civil Judge. Sanga Redd 1 1 LR Copies Tfp Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Affairs, l.lew Delhi The Secretary, Advocates Associatio Telangana, High Court Buitdings at One CC to SRI G UTUAPATHI SAST One CC to SRI VENKAT REDDY TH Two CD Copies th records, if any) Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Library, High Court for the State of erabad Y, Advocate [OPUCI PPARTHI, Advocate [OPUC] ADK/ghw HIGH COURT DATED:21lilStZOZs JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.46 of 2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS ioD cp? 2o Y.',xrl L\ V' 2 DRAFTS SEH 14 1 I 2025 i '-- 5 J,'z .\ i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FI T DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTYFIVE PRESE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 460F 2020 Between: G. Anand, S/o G. Sampath, Aged 52 Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ars, Occ Employee, Rlo.8-3-237 1418, ...AppellanUPlaintiff AND

1. G,Suryanarayana Murthy, S/o.G.Rama Business, Rio. Banjara Hills, Hyderaba 2. V.Madhav Reddy, S/O. Narayana Redd plaintiff, R/o. Balloram Village, Jinnara 3. V. Neeraja, Wo. V.Madhav Reddy, Ag plaintiff Rio. Balloram Village, Jinnaram (Rl is not necessary party) urthy, Aged 56 years, Occ Aged Majaor ,Occ: Not known to the Mandal, Medak District. Majaor ,Occ Not known to the andal, Medak District. Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C aga 26-06-2019 made in O.S.No.146 of 2013 on t Judge, Sanga Reddy. nst the Judgment and Decree Dated e file of the Court of the Senior Civil ...Respondents/Defenda nts This appeal coming on for hearing and the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G U Appellant and of SRI VENKAT REDDY THI Nos.2 & 3. upon perusing the grounds of appeal, and the material papers in the Case APATHI SASTRY, Advocate for the PARTHI, Advocate for Respondent This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed without costs; //TRUE COPY// SD/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR d-(I\/q CTION OFFICER SE To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy 2. Two CD Copies ADK \ck- HIGH GOURT DATED:21 10312025 DECREE AS.No.46 ot 202O DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS pE w fl{t'€