The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.6 6 of2025 JUDGMENT: Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 27.O4.2023 in A.S.No.227 of 2018 passed by the IU Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment dated 11.09.2018 in O.S.No.934 of 2OO8 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy District, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant

3. The appellant herein is defendant No.4 and respondent No. 1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the tria-l Court. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were referred in the suit. 4 The facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule A property arld to declare the title of plaintiff in respect of I 2 LNA,J 5-A.No.66 of 2025 \l -i \l \ schedule B property and other consequential relief of physical possession after dismantling the temporlry structures.

5. In the plaint, it is averred that, origin ally, one Kavali Yellaiah and Mohd.Hayath were joint owners and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.No.92 admeasuring Acs.14.13 guntas situated at Mansoorabad Village, Ftyderabad East. They have developed the lands and disposect of the plots to various persons, after obtaining the layout from the Gram Panchayat on 14.03.1968. One Vangala Venkat Reddy has purchased the plot bearing No.129 to an extent of 260 Sq.yards (herein after referred as suit scheclule A property) under registered sale deed document bearing No.llOO/1969, dated 28.03.1969 and the said Vangaa_ta Ver-rkat Reddy had executed a registered GPA bearing.document No.9 of 198O on

19.05.1980 in favour of Mr.M.Poorna Reddr,, who executed registered sale deed bearing document No.T 124 of 198O on

22.07.1980 in favour of plaintiff and thar the plaintiff has been in possession of suit schedule property.

6. I It is averred that in the month of 2nd week of November, \ZOOZ, defendant No.l made efforts to encroactr the land of the ,7 3 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 plaintiff. The plaintiff has constructed a compound wall in the months of November/ December, 2007. On 04.02.200g, when the plaintiff visited the suit plot, he noticed that dismantling of compound wall constructed by the plaintiff on northern side, and arother compound wall was constructed across plot No.129 regarding 95 Square yards of B Schedule property and thus, plot No.129 is bifurcated into two parts, part A to an extent of 165 square yards ald part B to al extent of 95 square yards and further a tin roof was constructed in Schedule B plot; that on verification of records at Sub-Registrar Office, Saroornagar, the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have colluded and created a false, sham and nominal document to usurp the schedule B property. Defendant No.2 claimed that he purchased B Schedule property from one Mohd.Basheer through a GpA N.Sekhar and the said Mohd.Basheer has no right and title in respect of Plot No.129, to an extent of 260 Sq.yards, since his father sold plot No.129 during his life time itself. It is further averred that defendant No.3 has constructed two more small rooms and open gate towards road on southern side and has continuing with the construction. The plaintiff \ 4 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 approached the police, L.B.Nagar, but they have refused to entertain the complaint. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file a suit.

7. Defendant No.2 remained ex-pafte

8. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement opposing the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time.

9. It is averred that defendants have purchased plot Nos.333 and 334 in Sy.Nos. 12 to 16 of Tumrnubowli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District through two registered documents uide docurnent Nos.96 1 and 962 of 2008, dated

25.02.2OO8 from their original vendors Smt.iiharada Kumari and Pushpalatha, the legal heirs of iat<: Shanker and Chandraiah, who have purchased the samc from one Gopi Suryakala under registered sale deed. The said Gopi Suryakala purchased the said plot from one Srinivasulu and others who made Iay out and made plots; that the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of th,: same and have I I \ 5 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 raised basement and also constructed compound wall as well as small room for security purpose and they are entitled to the possession of the land.

10. It is further averred that the land belonging to the defendants is in Sy.Nos .12 to 16, whereas, the plaintiff is claiming the plot in Sy.No.92 and basing on which, the defendants are trying to claim the lald belonging to the pliantiff. 1 1. In the written statement filed by defendant No.3, he denied the allegations made in the plaint and contended that one Kavali Ellaia}l was the owner of the land to an extent of Acs.8.34 guntas in Sy.No.92 and Mohd.Hayath was the owner of part of Sy.No.92 for the land to arr extent of Acs.3.26 guntas situated at Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy District and both of thern obtained layout in Gram Panchayat on

14.03.1968 and M. Srinivasulu, who is the owner of plot No.128, has constructed a house in the said land and Gadde Shivamma, who is owner of plot No.130, has purchased the same from one Yadagiri under a registered sale deed. It is further averred that, after the death of Mohd.Hayath, his son Mohd.Basheer became the owner of plot No.128, Daf,l \ t s 6 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 admeasuring 236 Sq.yards, Plot No.129 arlmeasuring 240 Sq.yards, Plot No. 130, admeasuring 27O Sq.yards tota-l admeasuring 746 Sq.yards 1n Sy.No.92. t)ut of the said properties, the son of Mohd.Hayath Ali has executed a sale- cum-GPA registered agreement in favour of Mr.N.Sekhar in respect of B Schedule Property, which is being claimed by the plaintiff and possession was delivered to defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 purchased the same from defendalt No.2 and raised one room and the same was assisterl by GHMC and allotted municipal No.3-72-14 /129 and the saine was assessed to tax. Prior to purchase of the said property, this defendant has verified the pahanies from 19t59 till 2003-04 Even in the pahanies for the years 199O-91, 1992-93, 1993 94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 in column No.13, the possession of late Mohd.Hayat was shown in respect of Acs.3.29 guntas including the pattadar column No. 12 al,l as such the allegation made by the plaintiff that the property was divided into plots in the year 1968 is not correct.

12. Defendant No.2 filed written statement as that of defendant No.3 ald further averred that defendant No.4 had purchased the schedule B property from defendant No.3 and, I \/ I '/ 7 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 - since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and prayed to dismiss the suit. 13. On the basis of the above pleadings ol both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for tria-l:_ (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect ofA schedule property as prayed for? (iil whether the plaintiff is entitred for decraration of titre in respect of B Schedule property and for consequential recovery of possession by dismantling the structures in said property? (iii) Whether the alienation by the defendanr Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ? (i") To what relief.2

14. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PWI and Exs.A1 to Al0 documents were marked and on the other hald, defendant No.3 was examined as DWl and Exs.B1 to B32 documents were marked ald one independent witness by name Sri N.Sekhar was examined as DW2. The Defendalt No.4 was examined as DW3 and Exs.B33 to 836 documents were marked I / 8 t'\ LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025

15. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentionrl of both the parties, the tria,l Court decreed the suit, uider judgment artd decree dated 1 1.09.2018.

16. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- "Apparently and evidently, both parties clairn right over B schedule property through registered sale deeds. The purchase by the plaintiff is through his venclor Vengala Venkat Reddy who had purchased from origi;ral vendors Kavali Yellaial and Mohd Hayath. The purclLase by the defendant no.3 is from defendalt no.2 whe inturn had purchased from Mohd Basheer through his GPli holder N.S ekhar ana the sard Basheer is none other than the son of Mohd Hayath one of the original vendor for d;sputed Plot r:o.l29. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case that the suit property originally belongs to Kava \ ellatah and Mohd Hayath to alr extent of Ac. 14.13 gts in S.No.92 art they had jointly obtained permission from the grampanchayath, Maroorabad on 14.03.1968 for converting into plots and had sold the plots intending pur,:hasers and the suit plot 129 is one among them and they jcintly sold to Vangala Venkat Reddy to arr extent of 260 sqzds through registered sale deed dated 28.03.1969 had placed Ex.A-4. The plaintiff inturn had purchased the property from Venkat Reddy through his GPA holder Poorna Reddy ExA6 dated 14.03.1968. To show that there were no sale transactions during the period from O1.t)1.1970 to 18.05.2008 from the date of purchase by plairrtiffs vendor to til1 alienation to the plaintiff had placed reli.ance on ExsA 1 to A3 encumbrance certificates. ExAS is the GPA executed by Venkat Reddy in favour of his GPA holder Poorna Reddy i respect of scit schedule property." "On B schedule property, except defendant Nc,.l who had seriously disputed the case of the plaintiff that the plaintif or his vendor had never purchased the suit plot and they were neve in possession at any point of time and he never interfered with suit plot as it is not adj acent to his plots 333 and 334 which are in S.Nos12 to 16, arrd he never attempted to occupy A schedule property and there is no compound wall around suit plot and never dismantled compound wall on northern side. ln support of his version, ,| \ \ 9 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2O25 no evidence is forthcoming and failed to contest the suit subsequent to frling the written statement. Thus an adverse inference has to be drawn against him and the decision relied on by learned counsel for plaintiff in Vidhyadhar Vs Marik Rao and another in AIR 1999 SC 1441 wherein it was held that if the witness did not choose to enter into witness box to state his own case on oath, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. The said decision is well applicable to the facts of the present case. Except mere and vague denials in the written statement nothing could be elicited to support the case of defendant no. 1 and contested the suit on untenable grounds. So it can be safely presumed that due to alleged interference of the defendant no. 1 on A schedule property, it put the plaintiff into great inconvenience. Unless contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non suited. Thus entire evidence tilts in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1." "tt is highly ridiculous to accept the case of contesting defendarrts when once the suit plot was sold to vendor of plaintiff through registered document for more than 3 decades ago and thereafter the purchase by the plaintiff in the year 1980 much prior to filing of the suit, the question of defendants or their vendors in possession during subsequent periods does not arise. Even mere entries in revenue records will not confer any title to the suit property when the registered documents of the plaintiff had rightly answered to the case of the dendants. So the defendants carnot take advantage of the situation because of mere entries in revenue records when they neither challer zed the documents of the plaintiff or his vendor till date arrd watched a a silent spectator a,ll these daye and thereafte: created a series of dod ments from 2006. So it appears that Ex.B-l to E}-36 documents are just. tagged on to have regularization of present dispute with al intention to create multiplicity of proceedings. Even it is strange to visualite that the defendant no.4 during the pendency of suit procebdings had purchased the property under Ex..-36 wit].out obtaining prior permission from the court and thus hit by doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of T.P Act. The entire case of the contesting defendants are surrounded by suspicious circumstarices and they failed to prove their case either through the averments or through the evidence and nothing could be elicited from oral testimony of PWI and in fact most part of elicitations of Dws I to 3 are ir. the nature of hearsay without any corroboration and are in accordanc to the case of thc plaintiff. On the face of it, there is lack of transpare.ty and fairness on the part of the defendants in establishing their 10 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 deferise and failed to shift burden on the plzuntiff. Even from the sketch. map filed by the piaintiff, it is r:rysta1 clear that the defendants had encroached the B scheCule plot by raising structures and thus made the plaintiff to run from pillar to coast by knocking the doors of the court. When no better cvidence placed to replace the evidence of plaintiff, it becomes a factor to reject the case of the defenCalts. Thus the claim put forward by the plaintiff is in an1'vray superior to that of the defencants and t]lus entitled for recovery of possession of B-Schedule property by dismantling the structures in B-schedule property as the plain tiff declared to be absolute owner of B-Schedule property."

17. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the frnal fact-finding Court, re-appreciated the entir,i evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated 27.04.2023, confirming r.he judgment of the trial Court. i 8. The first Appellate Court in its judgm,:nt observed as hereunder:- "The plaintiff and tJle defendant No. 2 to 4 are claiming the right over the B schedule property through a registered sale deeds. On perusal of the recorci, it reveals that K.Yellaiah and Mohd Hayath are the owners to an extent of Ac. 14-13 gts in Sy.No.92 and they obtained permission from Gramapanchayath on 14.03.1968 for converting the land into plots and the said pkrts are sold to the purchasers and in the said process ptot No. 129, admeasuring 260 sq.yards was jointly sold to Vangala Venkat Reddy under Ex.A4 /registered s;ale deed, dt.28.03.1969 altd the said Vangala Venkat Reddy executed a GPA in favor of on 19.O5.1980 vide Ex. A-5 in favor of M.Poorna Reddy and the plaintiff herein purchased the suit schedule plot from the Vangala Venkat Reddy through his GPA holder vide Ex.A6 / registered sale deed, dt. 14.O3.1968 and to prove that there are no sale transaction during the period from Ol.lO. 1970 to 11 LNA,J S.A.No.56 of 2025

18.05.2008 from the date of purchase by the plaintiffs vendor to till a_lienation to the plaintiff had placed reliance on Ex.Al to A3/Encumbrance certificates and in order to substantiate that Ex.A-4 is genuine, the plaintiff placed reliance of Exs.A-9 and A-10 registered sa.le deeds of neighboring plot owners which tallies with the boundaries of suit schedule property and they had purchased from originai owners Yellaiah and Mohd. Hayath and the recitals also indicates that they obtained layout permission from grampalchayat." 'The defendants contended that Mohd Hayath is owner of Ac.3-26 gts and after his demise, ttre property amongst Mohd. Basheer his brothers was partitioned and tJle suit schedule plot was allotted to Mohd Basheer. The defendalts placed reliance on Ex. B-4 to B-27 pa_hanis, wherein, tJ'e names of Yellaiah to an extent of Ac. g-34 gts and Mohd. Hayath to an extent of Ac. 3-26 gts is recorded and the defendant No.2, who is the vendor of defendant No.3, failed to contest the suit and the defendant No.3 and 4 are not clear how their vendor Mohd. Basheer acquired title to the property which was sold by his father Mohd. Hayath in the year 1968 itself. Mere continuation of revenue entries in the name of Mohd. Hayath in the records, does not confer any title on Mohd. Basheer to alienate the suit schedule B property, when his father already alienated the sarne in the year 1968 itself and the sard alienations were not challenged by Mohd. Hayath during his life time nor by their lega.l heirs arrd further the defendant No.4 purchased the schedule B property during the pendency of the suit under Ex. E}-36 without obtarning permission from the court and the same is hit by the provisions of SecLion 52 of Transfer of property Act.' "The case of the defendants is that Mohd Basheer being the owner executed Ex.B-3/agreement of sale-cum-GpA with possession dated 25.04.2006 in favour of N. Sekhar and the said GPA holder executed Ex.B-2/sale deed dAted favour of tl.e defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 inturn sold the schedule property in favour of defendarrt No. 3 vide Ex. B- l/agreement of sale-cum-GpA with possession d,ated, 22.01.2008 and the defenda:nt No. 2 through the GPA holder executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 vide Ex.B-36/saIe deed dated 6.10.2009. On perusal of the evidence of DWsl to 3, they have not verified the title of their vendor and without verification they purchased the property alrd on date of purchase by' l the defendant No.2, atready suit schedule plot was alienated in favour of plaintiffs vendor. As such, the ) t2 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 \ Mohd Basheer do not have any title to alienate in favour of the defendant No.2. Hence, the court below rightly hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and decreed the suit. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere the impugned judgnlent,"

19. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate CouLrt have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and have come to arl erroneous conclusion and decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1. Learned counsel would further contend that the plaintiff should not take advantage of weakness of the. defendants and has to prove his case on his own strength and merits. In the present case, though copy of sanctioned layout was not filed, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff and thus, carne tc an erroneous conclusion. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as l-rrst Appellate Court have failed to apprecrate the fact that the defendarrt/ appellarrt has constructed the compound wa1l room which was also assessed by the IVlunicipality and therefore, ought to have dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. I I 13 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025

20. A perusal of the record reveal that the trial Court as well as the hrst Appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiff was able to prove his case, and the defendant has failed to prove and establish his contentions. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have observed that the plaintiff had purchased the plot i.e., suit schedule property in the year 1969 whereas, the defendant is claiming title basing on the document of the year 2006 from one Mohd.Basheer. However, the defendant lailed to prove the title of his vendor. 21 . The first appellate Court has categoricalty observed that the defendant failed to establish as to how Mohd. Basheer, who is the vendor of defendant, has acquired the title to the suit schedule property and how the same was sold in the year 1968 and that entries are continuing in the revenue records and it does not confer any title. The trial Court has also observed that defendant No.4 has purchased the suit schedule B property without obtaining permission from the Court authority concerned and the same is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The first Appellate Court further observed that the defendants have not verihed the title of their vendor as on the date of purchase and failed t t * ,/ 74 LNA,J S.A.No.66 of 2025 to notice that as on the date of purchase, the suit schedule property was already alienated in favor of the plaintifl,s vendor's arrd that Mohd. Basheer, vendor of defendant, has no title to a_lienate the suit schedule property of the defendant.

22. However, learned counsel for appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grouncls raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Secti,rn lOO C.p.C. 23. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 1O0 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfer.e with the hndings on facts arrived at by the first Appetlate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the ora_l i,rrd documentary evidence on record.

24. Further, in Gurd.eo Kaur o. Kakit, the Hon,ble Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeat cannot examine the evidence 6nqs again as a third trial Court t (20071 l supreme Court Cases 546 I 15 LNA,J 5.4-No.65 of 2025 and the power under Section l0O C.p.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration. fl5. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings 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 Appeat. 26. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 27. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGABH USHAr'/lBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The lll Additionat d I Additional Senior One CC to SRI pO Two CD Copies istrict judge at Ranga Reddv Urvrl JUdge, Ranga Reddv. TTIGARI SRTDHAR REDDy Advocate tOpUCI To, 1 2 3 4 6- # HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 JUDGEMNT SA.No.66 o12025 oB 1HE S t4 re. ( \JA o o 26 ilJN 20fr * Dr" .- .... '-.,'. -.., ! . / .--,/ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITH OUT COSTS fl\\ 7b b 1t