Heard Sri Arnan charla v. Gopala Rao, Iearned

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanoes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in E.P No. 66 of 2024 in OS No.169 ol 2f.25 on the file of the Principat Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, by suspending the decree dt.01.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.169 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Kothagudem District. Gounsel for the Appellants : Sri Gopala Rao Amancharla.V Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma The Court made the following : JUDGMENT The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Iudqment: Heard Sri Arnan charla V. Gopala Rao, Iearned counsel for the appellant. *d Sri P. Rama Sharabna Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record-

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the impugned fudgment and decree dated 23.07 .2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bha&adri Kothagudcm in A.S.No.33 of 2025 confirming the Judgment and decree clated 02.06-2023 passed by the Pdncipal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in ().S-No-169 of 2015.

3. Initially, suit was fited by the respondent/plaintiff on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem sccking declaration clf his possessory title and for consequential recc)ver\: of possession urlder Section 6 of Specific Relief Act and for arrcars o[ damages \ / t, ,'l i: I i : , i ! I t i i I I i I 1 I I i z I : i ,! ; i I t i 1 : i . 2 and future damages. The said suit was partly decreed declaring the possessory tide of respondent with a direction to the appellants to vacate the suit schedule properry within 3 months from the date of judgment. The relief with respect to past and future damages has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the sarne, the appellants/defendants filed preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.33 of 2024 and said appeal has been dismissed with costs confirming the fudgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred bv raising Eight (8) substantial questions of law.

4. While arguing about the maintainabiliw, the learned counsel for the appellants raised thc following ?"d substantial question of law: \ \ 'TThether L suit for declaratiorr of title based on adverse possession is maintainable without thc plaintiff provkrg continuous, uninterrupted, hostilc posscssion over the suit schedule property for the st,ttutc)n' period?" I I l : i r i I i 3

5. No emphasis is made on any of the remaining substantial questions of law. On the above issue, there was heated discussion about whethcr declaration of possessory title can be sought and, in such scenari<1, there can be an occasion for adverse possession by the appellant:. It is admitted by both the parties that the land in question was Govemment land which was occupied decades ago by the respondt:nt and appellant No.1. There is no title to the land except right ovef said land on account of long standing posscssion- For making any claim of adverse possession, the title of the owner has to be acl<nowledged. In the instant case, there is no titlc ttlr the respondent flor the same to be acknowledged b,v the appellants before claiming adverse possession. Be that as it mar', the suit rvas filed under ,section 6 of Specific Relief Act alleging clisposscssion and seeking relief of declaration of possessory title arrcl recoverv of possession. As per Section 6(3) of Specific Reliet- ,\ct, 1963. no appeal or review is maintainable against any order or dccrec passcd in any suit insriruted under said section. Relevant provision is \pxtracted and produced below: \'/ / 4

6. Suit by person dispossessed of,immovable property' - 1)IfanypersonisdispossessedwithouthisconsentofirnmovableProPerty othenwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through himmay,bysuit,recoverpossessionthereof'notwithstandinganyother title that may be set up io such suit' 2) No suit under this section shdl be brought- (a) (b) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or against the Govemment' 3) No appeal shall lie from any or<ler or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall atrv review o[ any such order or decree be allowed. 4) Nothing in this section shall bar an-\' Person from suing to establish his 'title to such property and to recover possession ttrereof'

6.TheaboveSection6(3)ofspecificRelieiActclearlystipulates that neither an apPed,nof a reyie\f is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Trial court in ().S.N c.'169 of 2015' The only remedyavailablefortheappellantslrereinwastopreferaCivil Revision Petition. However, mistakenlv, the First Appeal was preferred and the same \I/as registered and disposed of by the learned First Appellate court. As pcr Section 6(3) of the Specific .'/ \ t 5 Relief Act, the First Appeal itself is not maintainable, therefore, the question of admitting Second Appeal does not arise-

7. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed as not rnaintainable. The appellants ar:e ^t available to them, if any. No costs. liberty to pursue other remedies Miscellaneous applications, if arry, pending in this Second Appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. P GOWRI SHANKAR REGISTRAR ,/TRUE GOPY" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Bhadradri.Kothagudem District 2. The F'rincipal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem' 3. One CC to'sriGopala Rao Amancharla.vAdvocate t_o_Pu-g] 4.OneCCtoSriP.RamaSharanaSharma'AdvocatetOPUCl 5. Two OD CoPies SVS/ABK Yk HIGH CC}URT DATED:08/09/2025 4 / JUDGMENT SA.No.390 of 2025 i) ( * S 0 2 t:i:B 2il2i; * DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AS NOT II'IAINTAINABLE ?f\f"A tr*