The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI T VENKAT REDDY The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO A.S.NO.63 0F 2020 JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.147 of 2013, dated 26.06.2019, on the file ofthe learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the suit filed by the appellant for declaration and recovery of possession against defendant Nos.3 and 4 came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit, for convenience sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.89 in Survey No.7A to an extent of 325 square yards situated at Sriram Nagar Colony, Patelguda Village at Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.375211986, dated

08.05.1986. The plaintiff's vendor is defendant No.2, who was in possession of the property in Survey No.7. Defendant No.2 executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on 10.07.1984 vide registered document No.93/1984 registered in the office of SRO, Sangareddy, Medak District. Defendant No.1 has developed the land in Survey No.7 into housing plots along r- 2 BRMR,J AS.No.63_202O with the other adjacent lands and named as Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda Village. Sangareddy Taluq, Medak District, sotd 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. In the month of July,2Ol2, when the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property, he was surprised to see that fencing laid around his property was removed. The praintiff received the information from the Tahsildar office that defendant No.3 is in possession of Survey Nos.7-10. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no right in the suit schedule property in any manner to occupy and to enter their names in the concerned records.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte in the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the contesting parties and they contended that Machkuri pedda Kistaiah was the absolute owner of Ac.0.36 guntas in Survey No.7. pratap Reddy and another purchased the said land for varid 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.36 guntas. Defendant No.4 has purchased the same through registered sale deed yide document No.2B10l2001. Survey No.7/E/t to an extent ofAc.o.1g guntas belongs to Machkuri Narayana S/o. Ramaiah. Defendant No.3 has purchased the same through registered sale deed. Sy.No.7/E/2 belongs to Machkuri Kistaiah S/o. to an extent of Ac.0.17 Ramaiah. Defendant guntas No.p has 3 BRMR,J AS. No.f)3 2020 purchased the same through registered sale deed. Survey No.7/EE to an extent of Ac.0.36 gts., belongs to Machkuri Papaiah S/o. Venkaiah, Defendant No.4 has purchased the same under registered sale deed. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are in possession of Survey Nos.7/AA,7/E/1, 7/E/2 and 7/EE since the date of their purchase. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit plot at any point of time.

6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the vacant possession from defendant Nos.3 and 4? 3) To what relieP 7 . The plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.81 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 case for declaration, recovery of possession from defendant Nos.3 and 4 and dismissed the suit.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.Al to A3 and also failed to observe that the documents filed by defendant Nos{ and 4 i.e., Exs.81 to 813 are subsequent to Ex.A1, Exs.B14 to \J -/ 4 ARMR.J AS No 63 2020 B,24 are prior to Ex.A1 and wrongly placed reliance on the documents filed by defendant No.3.

9.2. It is stated in the cause title of the Appeal that resPondent Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties to the Appeai as they were set e.x parte in the Suit.

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos'3 a ppella nVpla intiff failed to prove that he is recovery of possession from defendant Nos.3 and 4 submits that the entitled for declaration, and 4. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant/pla intiff 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 entitled to seek a declaration, recovery of possession from defendant Nos.3 and 4? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any illegality or perversity? Point No.1: t2.1. The case set up by the appellant/plaintiff in his plaint is that the original pattadar is in possession of the property in Survey No.7, he has executed a GPA in favour of G.Suryanarayana Murthy (D1) on

10.07.1984 vlde registered document No.93/1984, defendant No'1 has developed the land, converted them into house plots in Survey No'7 \t/ I I 5 L}RMR.J AS.No.63 2O2O along with the adjacent lands and named the area as Sriram Nagar Colony at Patelguda Village, Sanga Reddy Taluk, Medak District. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 on

08.05.1986 vide registered sale deed document bearing No.375211986 registered in the office of the SRO, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. Plaintiff has raised fencing around suit schedule property in order to protect the same from the encroachers. When he visited the suit schedule property in the month of July, 2012 he was surprised to see that fencing was removed and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have illegally occupied his plot.

12.2. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.A3 is the Copy of Market Value, dated 06.05.2013 issued by Registering Officer, Sangareddy. The plaintiff stated in his cross-exa mination that he do not know exactly where the Sy.No.7/AA and Sy.No.7/EE are located in Sy.No.7. he cannot say whether Sy.Nos.7 to 10 are having irregular shape and they are not in rectangular shape. In the year 2003 and 2OO7 as their plots were not identifiable on site, he made an application to MRO for survey and identification of plots, He does not know whether the original owners cultivated the land till the same was purchased by defendant Nos.3 and 4. Plaintiff further went to say in his cross-exa m ination that he has not made the original owners who sold the plots through GPA holder as party to the suit but made GPA holder as defendant No.1, and the persons who built their houses in ./ \. 6 tsRMR.J AS.No 63 2o2O the above survey numbers are not made parties in the suit, there are about 200 houses in Survey Nos.7 to 10 as on day.

13. Ex.81 is the original registered sale deed, dated 03.10.2002 in favour of V.Neeraja (defendant No.4) w,io. V.Madhava Reddy (D3) vrde document No.6449/2OO2 which goes to show that Neeraja (D4) 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.B2 is another sale deed executed by (1) Machkuri Narayana s/o.Veeranna (2) Machkuri Narsing Rao s/o.Narayana in favour of V.Neeraja (D4) w/o.Madhava Reddy (D3) in Survey No.7/eg, admeasuring Ac.0.36 gts., through registered sale deed, dated 17.05.2001 vrde document No.2810/2001. Ex.83 is the original registered sale deed executed by M.Ramulu and two others in favour of V.Madhava Reddy (D3) vide document No.14558/2007 dated

72.07.2OO7, admeasuring Ac.0.9 gts., in Survey No.7/a/l; 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.

14. Exs.B14 to 824 are the Pahanies from 1983 till 2012. which goes to show that the suit schedule survey number is in the name of Machkoori's family as pattadars and possessors till the names of def€ndant Nos.3 and 4 are recorded. The name of the. plaintiff's ..... l IJRMR,J AS.No.63 2020 vendor is not shown nor recorded in the pahanies. The plaintiffs counsel has cross-examined defendant No.3 at length and has got marked Exs.C1 and C2 to show that he is a party to the Land Grabbing Cases (LGC.Nos.1O3 and 104 of 2013), it is also elicited from the cross-exa m ination that the Land Grabbing Court has passed an order not to create any third party interest in respect of schedule plots on

19.11.2013 (Ex.C1 is the certified copy of order in I.A.No.1046 of 2013 in LGC.No.103 of 2013; Ex.C2 is the certified copy of the order in I.A.No.1047 of 2013 in LGC.No.104 of 2013).

15. As the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession against defendant Nos.3 and 4, the burden lies on him to prove the same.

16. The Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Thukalan Paulo Aviral observed that: "20. ... in a suit Ifor declaration] if the plaintiffs are to succecd they must do so on the strength of their own title." L7. In Nagar Palika, lind v. lagat Singh2 the Supreme Court has observed that: " The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaint ff-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 I ' AIR 1959 sc 31 ' irsssl : sr:c +zo AS.No.63 2O2O plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arrse in a suit."

18. In Union of India and Others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society3, 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 ptaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff 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 against them, in the absence oF establishment of the plaintiffs own tifle, the plaintifF must be non-su ited,,.

19. The plaintiff has relied on Exs.Al to 43 documents, he failed to examine the GpA holder or the owner of the property (Defendant Nos.1 and 2), so arso he faired 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 Nos.3 and 4 have occupied the suit schedule property. Plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for a declaration and '(zot4)2scc269 I recovery of possession from defendant Nos.3 and 4. Hence, point is answered acco rd ingly. Point No.2:

20. In view of the reasons in point No.1, I hold that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, point is answered accordingly' 2t. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions if any, are closed. SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR \ ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Crvrl Judge, Sanga Reddy 2. One CC to SRI G UMAPATHI SASTRY, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SR T VENKAT REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADKigh (r HIGH COURT DATED:21 103t2025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.63 of 2020 HET S Te R( 2 0 JUN 2U25 * .spA * 2 DRAFTS DISMISSING THE APPEAL SU!T WITHOUT COSTS 6""Pt kn' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 63 oF 2O2O Between: Eranki Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Late. E.V.R.K. Avadhanulu, Aged 53 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 202, N. Prahlada Plaza, Rajiv Nagar,Hydera6ad-45. ...AppellanUPlaintiff AND

1. G.Suryanarayana Murthy, S/o.G.Rama Murthy, Aged 56 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. P.Sadanandam, S/o.Satyan atayana, Aged 57 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Patelguda Village, Sangareddy. S Y lYlq{f,qy Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged Majaor, Occ. Not known to the plaintiff R/o. Balloram Village, Jinnaram frlanOat, M'edak District. 4 V. Neerqja, Wo. V.l/ladhav Reddy, Aged Majaor, Occ. Not known to the plaintiff R/o. Balloram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District. (Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were set exparte in the suit, hence not necessary) ...Respondents/Defendants Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 2610012019 made in o.s.No.147 of 2013 on the file of the- court of the senior civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material pafers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G UMAPATHI SASTRY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI T VENKAT REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 & 4 and none appeared for the respondent No.'1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA OII..IT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 ADK . The Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy . Two CD Copies Rr HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 DECREE AS.No.63 of 2020 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS u4"b' \a^- -rqf.