The High Court · 2025

being minor Rep by his mother and Guardian Defendant No.7).

9. P.Snehalatha, Wo Madhu, age 38 years, Occ : Househc,ld, R/o H.No.254{82, Vishunupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

10.Paluri Josephine George, Wo Late Sangeetha Rao, age €i't years, Occ: Rtd. Railway Teacher, R/o H.No.254480, Vishunupr:ri, Kazipet, Warangal. 1 1. Paluri Venkata Rao, S/o Paluri Sangeetha Rao, Age 31 rrears, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, S/arangal

12.P.Kalpana, Wo Philips Patric, D/o Late Sangeetha Rao, Age 30 years, Occ: Private Teacher, R/o Secunderabad

13.P.Kavitha, Wo M.K. Sai Krishna, D/o Late Palluri Sange-.tha Rao, age 29 years, Occ . Housewife, R/o Secunderabad

14.Paluri Sunitha, Wo Late Christopher, age 55 years, Occ l]ousehold, R/o H.No.25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal

15.Paluri Bindu, D/o Late Christopher, age 31 years, Occ:H,)usehold, R/o H. No.25-4-482, Vishn upuri, Kazipet, Warangal

16.Paluri Prem Kumar, Sio Late Christopher, age 30 years, C,cc: Private Employee, R/o H.No 25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Wararrgal

17.Paluri Sravan Kumar, S/o Late Christopher, age 27 year:; Occ: Private Employee, R/o H. No.25-4482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Wararrgal

18. Paluri Lalitha, Wo Late Shyamsunder, age 55 years, Oc:: Housewife, R/o H.No.254-482, Vishnupurr, Kazipet, Warangal

19.Paluri Vinay Kumar, S/o Late Shyamsunder, age 34 years Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No 25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal

20. Paluri Deepthi, D/o late Shyamsunder, age 31 years, Oc::Housewife, R/o H.No.254-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal

21.Palui Nihil Kumar, S/o Late Shyamsunder, Age 28 year:,, Occ:Employee, R/o H.No.254-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 149 days in re-presenting the above S.A.SR.NO 170 of 2O25. Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. S GANESH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : NONE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT '1 HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA /ILISHETTY SEICOND APPEAL No.l7O of 2O2!i JUDGMENT: Challenging the validity and legality of the -iudgment and decree dated 24.07.2024 in A.S.No.23O of 2Ol9 passed by the Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda, c onhrming the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in O.S.No.436 of '2t)O2 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, the J)resent Second Appeal is frled.

2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The appellants herein are the plain -ilTs and the respondents herein are thc clefendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred c as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the rlaintilfs filed a suit against the defendants seeking declaratrcn of title and recovery of possession that thev are the o!\,ners oI the land to an extent of 30O Square yards, situated adjacent tc) 'r luse No.25-4- 2 I.NA,J S.A.No.17O of 2025 484 at Somidi Road, Vishnupuri of Kazipet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District

5. In the plaint, it is averred that defendant Nos.l to S are natural brothers and they are residing at house bearing No.25- 4-48O, situated at Vishnupuri, Kazipet of Warangal District and the house of the plaintiffs exists towards northern side of the defendants' house- There is an open piace to an extent of 30O square yards (herein after referred as "suit schedule properfy") between the house of the plaintiffs and the defendants, which exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. It is averred that, originally, house bearing municipal No.l /2O7 rvas purchased by ptaintiff No. I for a sale consideration of Rs.8,5O0/- under an agreement of sale from one l-{eeralal and Babutal; that when t}re vendor of plaintiff No. I refused to regisrer the sale deed, he was constrained to file a suit uide O.S.No.73 of 1966 for specific performance against the vendors, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and the sarne \ ras decreed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the vendors of plaintiff No. t , preferred an appeal uide A.S.No.77 of 1968 and the same was allowed. plaintiff No. I then filed L.p.A.No.33 of 1 1973, before rhis Court and the same was allowed. I I ! t I I I i 3 LNA,J S \. No.170 of 2025 Subsequently on 13.12.1986, plaintiff No.t fiI,:<l E.p.No.9 of 1982 for delivery of possession wherein the Court bailiff, as per the direction of this Court had delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to him and a regisr.ered SaIe deed was executed in favor of plaintiff No.l in rer;Ir,ect of house No.l l2O7 on behalf of the vendors. The defendants, taking advantage of the old age of plaintiff No. l, liled a suit for permanent irrjunction against lnim uid_e O.S.No. 12,.24 of 2OO1 on the file of II Additiona-l Junior Civil Judge, Waranqirl, claiming to be the owners and possessors of the house bearitrll No,25-4-4g0 and the open lald to an extent of 3OO square .,.ards existing between the houses of plaintiff No. i and the de endanrs, along with I.A.No.977 of 2OOl for temporary injr-rnction. After thorough enquiry, LA.No.977 of 2OO I \r,as .l smrssecl and aggrieved by the said orders, the de[en(li]nts pre[erred C.M.A.No.70 of 2001 on the file of the III Adc irional District Judge, Warangal, which is pending for adj udicar i,rrr.

7. It is further averred that the clefendants, lrnder the guise of the exparle injunclion orders passect in O.S.No. 1224 of 2OOl, raised the pillars and compound wall to some ,t>:tent :rnd laid C.C.slab in the suit Schedule propert\ and after rlismissal of the ; I I t I i I i l 4 LNA,J S.A.No.170 of 2025 injunction application, they have stopped further construction. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No. I frled suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. As per records, plaintiff No.l died and his legal heirs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 1O were brought on record.

8. Defendant Nos. I to 5 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contended that house Nos.25-4-48O and 25-4-482 situated adjacently are exclusively owned and possessed by defendant No. l. Defendant No. 1 purchased house No.25-4-480 from one Sangaraboina yellaiah and house No.25-4-482 lrom Ravula Ilaiah. Defendant No.l is residing at H.No.25 4-482 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are residing at House No.25-4 480 w,ith the permission of defendant No. 1, as their house is under construction. I)efendant Nos.2 and 3 are staying at a rented house in the nearby locality. There is another house bearing No.25 4-429 owned and possessed by the brother-in-law of the defendants b.r, name Balerao Sunder Rao, which is abutting on Easr to H.No_25-4-4g2. Abutting to the East of House No.25-4 479, there was a hut and open place to an extent of 305 Square yards, which is owncd and possessed by the defendants and the hut r,r,as exempted from tax 5 LNA,J S A No.170 of 2025 assessment by the Municipality. The father of ltie defendants, by name Paluri David @ Md.Ankus, S/o. Nasar llohammed was originatly a Muslim and converted to Christianit'i The father of the defendants, during his life time, purchased ztrL extent of 19O Square yarcls on 10.04.1962 from Sri Chityala Rajaih, through Simple sale deed. Subsequently, he had purc -rased another piece of open land to an extent of 115 Scp-Lare yarrls on

18.12.1964, which is abutting to 19O Square yards on Northern side from its previous owners M.B.Vowels and A.l/or'"els and the said l15 Square yards is part of the open yar<l of l{.No. I/2O7 belonging to the said Vowels. The house f lc . 1 / 207 o[ the plaintiffs and the suit schedule house of the rlefendants are separated by a compound wall. (). After purchase of the said open land, rr: father of the defendants had constructed a hut and residecl till his death. The father of the defendants expired on I tl.OiJ. 1979 and thereafter, they have inherited the said propert r Being his onlv legal heirs, they are in peaceful possession an<l e njol'ment of the sarne. Defendant No.1 being the elder brother zLnd head of the lamily anrl as he already own houses, exec uted registered settlement deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 :c 4, dividing the 6 LNA,J S.A.No.170 of 2025 suit schedule property into four parts, leaving some land for their private passage. Defendarrt Nos.2 to 4, with a view to construct their respective houses with joint walls, have submitted plans to the municipality by paying the planning fees and betterment charges uide receipt No.195119, dated 28.O9.2OO1 and also paid development charges to the Kakatiya Urban Development Autho rity uide Challan to account No.1456, dated 28.O9.200 1. Thereafter, they had commenced the construction in the said open land. The plaintiffs kept quiet until tlle structures were raised to little level, without raising any objection. The defendants have also perfected their title over the suit schedule property bv virtue of adverse possession.

10. The vendor of the father of the defendants i.e., Ms.A.Vowels, besides selling her plor i 15 Sq.yards to their father, sold her open plot i.e., part of the house No. l/207 to some others. In fact, A.Vowels is not alias names of Heeralal and Babulal. The said Vowels agreed to sell the house No. 1 of 2OT to the plaintiff frrstly, but subsequently agreed to sell the said house to Heeralal and Babulal. prior to the execution of agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff on 1O.0g.1965 or in favour of Heeralal and Babulal, the said Vowels had alreadv sold / / 7 LNA,J S.,\. ',1o.170 of 2025 a piece of open plot pertaining to house No. 1 of 2O1' to the father of the defenclants, on 18.12.1964 and to some others, which is evident from the certified copy of the registered document hled by the plain tiff, executed by the Court on 13.()11.1986 in his favour and his brother Mohd.Moosa and she retained some more land appurtenant to the house bearing No.1 of 2O7 - Therefore, thc plaintiff cannot contend that whatever the land sold bv thc vowels much prior to the ag:e ement dated

01.O8. 1965 i.e., to the father of the defendants on 18.12.1964 and others is also covered under the Registt:red sale deed No.5/ 1986. In fact, the plaintiff, with the help of the registered document No.5 of 1986, is trying to grab ttLe land of the defendants. 1 1. 't'hougl-r. the Registered Sale Deed was exe:ttted in favour oi rhc plaintifl and his brother Mohd. Moosa jointll', in rcspect o[ the ouse, the plaintiff has frled this suit denyie;g the share of house No. I 12a7, in spite of the dispute pending betu,'een l-rimself and his brother Mohd. Moosa. After corn mencement of construction by the defendants, the plaintiff raiserl dispute only regarding the boundary, as such, they were constrained to ltle the suit for pcrmanent injunction in O.S.No. 1224 l2OO1, on the 8 LNA,J S.A.No.170 of 2025 file of Il-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and the C.M.A. preferred by them against the orders passed in the petition for temporary injunction, which is pending.

12. The defendants are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property ald as admitted by the plaintiffs, they have already made construction over the same. The Registered Sale Deed of the plaintiffs bearing doc.No.OS/ 1986, does not reveal the extent of the land covered by the house bearing No.l /2OT, and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and recovery of possession. The defendants cannot be evicted from the suit schedule property, as they are the absolute owners and possessors of it. The plaintiff has no cause of action to fite the suit and the same is frivolous, vexatious and aimed at grabbing the same from the defendants. The Court l.'ee paid by the plaintilf is also insufficient. The defendanrs, wirh rhe above contentions, prayed to dismiss the suit, rvith heavy costs.

13. On the basis of the above pleaclings of both the parries, the trial Court framed the following issues lor trial: (t) Whether the plaintiff is having an_y right or title over the suit schedule property? ,,/ ./ j 9 LNA,J S./\ llo.170 of 2025 (iil Whethr:r the plaintiff is entitled for the po,;siession of the suit scheduk: property? (iv) To what relieP

14. On behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.2, who is wife of plaintiff No.I , was examined as PWl. Ex.Al, cr:rtifred copy of sale deed, dated 22.07.1985 was marked through PWI and on behalf of the defendants, DW2 was examined. the evidence in chief of DW 1 and DW3 remained eschewed.

15. After f ull flcdged trial, upon considering the oral and documentan evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, uide judgment ancl decree dated

19. 11.20 18.

16. The trial Court categorically observed as he:e under:- ''The plaintiff having sought the -eliefs of dt t laration o[ title and recovery of possession of the srrlL schedulc property, from the deferrdants. by r t uc o[ Rcgistered Sa]e Deed, executed tJrrough the ( ()rlrt rn lavour of himself and his brothr:r Mohd. I\loosa under Ex.A1, did not choose to hle the or rqrn:rl Salc Deed with plan before the Court in or(ler to establish the existence of the suit schedule pr()perty and his exclusive right and title over the s:tttle.'' -As it is an undisputed fact that the brother ot pl:rrntrff Mohd. Moosa frled a suit for pafi:tion of the pr opcrty covered by Ex.Al and the same \ as decided rn his far,our before the Tria Court ancl as well as I lon blc High Court, this Court is not :nclined to :i( cL:pt thc contention of the plaintiffs that said I\4()hd. Moosa is not necessary party to th,l present srr ir. morc particularly, in tlle absence of th,: plarntiff 10 LNA,J 5.A.No.170 of 2025 filing any document of relinquishment altegedly executed by his brother in his favour." 'ln view of the adrnitted fact that the suit for Specific Performance of Contract was hled by the plaintiff and his brother and SaIe Deed under Ex.Al was executec in favour of both of them and the brother of the plaintill succeeded in the partition suit frled by him in respect of the property covered by Ex.Al before the Trial Court and as well as before the Hon'ble High Court of A.p., it can be hetd rhar without hesitation that the younger brother o[ the plaintifi by name Mohd. Moosa is proper and necessary party to the suit arrd the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessaqr party. Accordingty, thrs issue is ar:rswered against the plaintiff. "

17. On appeal, the frrst Appellate Court, being the final fact- finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated 24.O7.2024, thereby, conflrming the judgmenr of the trial Court

18. The first Appellate Court in its judgmcnt observed as L hereunder:- "...It is admitted that the suit schedule property situated in between the houses of thc plaintiffs and defendants. As per Ex.Al sale dced the first plaintiff and his brother Mohd Moos:r were owners of the prop€rty. The detendants conrcndcd that the suit schedule property is not rhe part ancl parcel of house bearing No.l /2O7. p.W. l. admitted that they are clai-rring the property which also sold to Heeralal and Babulat. The main contention of rhe parties that the defendants along wrth Ex.A I salc deed plan was not annexed. Ex.B-7 shou,s that rhc plan annexed to the sale deed. "The case on hand excepr rel,ving on Ex.A I , the ptaintills has not hled any docu menr rn support of their claim even, as per Ex.A I also there is no existence of measurement and thc brother o[ +' !::r 11 LNA,J S.A No.170 of 2025 thc first plaintiff filed partition suit against. the first plaintiff in which the present suit schedule property was not part a.rrd parcel of the said par tition suit. These facts clearly shows that plaintiffs :rriserably farled to prove that they are absolute oweers of the suit schedule, property and the suil schedule property was in existence. lt is a-lso to be r.oted that the pleadings of the plaint categorically revealed that the brother of the plarntiff is the profornra party in the suit as he has alienated the property t() the first plaintiff. But the manner in which the defendants adduced i.c., Ex.B-37 clearly evident that the property cover under Ex.A-l was not srtught for partition by the brother of the first plaintiff Ex.A-l clcarly shows that first plaintiff and his rrother are absolute owners and the court has exr'cuted saie deed in favour of the first plaintiff ald ttis brother. Without any document the plaintills are contending Ihar lirst plaintiff brother alienated the ploperty and Iirst plaintiff is absolute owner of the la.nd is not correct, whereas the defendants proved ttLat the first ptaintiff and his brother partitioned the pr operties by u; fihng the partrrion suit, which clearly shows that surt schedule property was not subject matter of the partitron suit between the hrst plaintitf and his brother."

19. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court as u'ell as liirst Appellate Court ltave failed to properly apprcciate the oral and documentar5l evidence placed on record. Hc r.r,ould further submit that both t.h.e Courts have misinterpratated Exs. B I to 86 and have corr e to erroneous conclusion. I I E further submitted that both the courts have committed grave error in rejecting the suit frled by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possessLon, though the defendants admitted rhar rhe appellants/plair.t iffs purchased L2 LNA,'| S.A.No.170 of 2025 the suit schedule property through register€d sale deed. He would further submit that both the Courts have failed to consider the glft deed executed by the father of the defendants/ respondents invalid, since his title was not established. He would further submit that both the Courts have erroneously placed reliance on t*re property tax receipts i.e. , Exs.B9 to B34 and failed to consider the same and could not confer any title.

20. A perusal of the record would disclose that the tria_l Court as well as First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the ptaintiffs, having sought for declaration of title and recoven,of possession of suit schedule property under the registered sale deed u,hich w,as executed in his favour as well as his brother under Ex.A1, did not choose to file the original sale deed alor-rg n'ith plan to establish the existence of the suit scheclule propertv and their exclusive right and title over the same. Both the Courts heid that the plaintiffs failed to prove that thel. are the absolute or^/ners of the Suit Schedule property and the plaintiffs are claiming ownership of the entire propertv n.ithout there being any document of relinquishment by his brother. The First Appellate Court further observed that the defcndants ',/--/ 13 LNA,J S.1,.No.170 of 2025 proved that plaintiff No.l and his brother partitioned the property by hling a partition suit, by which it is clear that the suit schedule property is not the subject mat -er between the plaintiffs and his brother. The trial Court as u,ell as the frrst appellate Court further held that the brother of ptaintiff No.1 by name Mohd.Moosa , though he is proper and rrr:cessar5r part5r, was not made a party to the suit. Therefore, rtre suit is barred by non-joindcr of necessary parry. The First appellate Court further observed thar the brother of Mohd.Moos,a i.e., plaintiff No. l liled a suit in O.S.No.305 of 1989 on the fi e of I Additional Senior Civil ..ludge, Warangal and the sarne \\ as decreed and plaintiff No. t filed an appeal before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradcsh and the said appeal ',r,as dism ssed and in the said suit, the suit schedule property was not mentioned. Therefore, it rs evident that the property coverel under Ex.Al was joint propert_V of plaintifi No.l and his lrrothers and he ought to havc mentioned the suit schedule prop,rrty in the suit filed by the brother of plain tiff No. I for partition

21. However, learned counsel lor appellants feri.ed to raise any qubstantial cluestion of larv to lte clecided by thrs Court in this Slcond Appeal. [n fact, all the grounds raised irr this appeal are 1,4 LNA,J 5.A.No.170 of 2025 factual in nature and do not quali$r as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 1O0 C.P.C.

22. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal frled under Section 10O C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the f-rrst Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentaqr evidence on record.

23. Further, in Gurdeu Kaur a. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Court, sitting in Second Appeal, cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 1O0 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration.

24. Having considered the entire material available on record arrd the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference u,ith the said findings uncler Section 1OO C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised b1 the appellants are factual in nature and no I (2007) l supreme Court Cases 546 15 LNA,J S.A.No.170 of 2025 question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this Second Appeaj. 25. Hence, the Second Appeal fails anc the sarne is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No costs. 26. Pending miscellaneous applications, if irny, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// i \ SD/. V. KAVITHA DF:PUTY REGISTRAR= . SECTION OFFICER I To, \/ t. The Court of Principal District Judge at Hlvlumakonda 2. The Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangtal 3. One CC to SRI S. GANESH RAO, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/ 'p ( i i t i I I I I i t I I I I I I I ! I I i HIGH COURT DATED: 1 510412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.170 ot 2025 > .l i^ ,1 ,irtti;r t\lt )- rJ li e) \'/a\ ? 5 0[T ?lu:i 'i ,\ :: i) ,/, .. ,?, DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STATGE OF ADMISSION u 6\.