Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, MahabubnaEir r District v. vs I I'rc conf

APPELLI N TS/DEFENDANTS AND

1. Dr. M. Nirmala Devi. Wo Dr Narayan Reddy, Aged abr,r t 70 years. Occ Medical Practuoner R/c H No. 1-6-136/1 Court Roac.',:habubnagar RESF't t1'19EP1/PLAINTIFF

2. Anupati Venkataiah, S/o. A lVasaiah (died) 3. Anupati Pedda Bheemaiah, S/o. Posaiah (died) 4. Anupati Bheemarah, S/o. Masaiah, (died) 5. Anupati Balamma, Wo. A. Chandraiah (died) 6 Anupati Bheemamma, Wio A. San1anna (died) (RR 2 to 6 are not necessary to this Second Appeal) -..RESPONDEtI'{J/ RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the circ I nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLtrt nray be p eased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of ludgment and dec., e, dated 1710312022 passed in O.S. No. 101 oI 2011 on the frle of the Honble t r ncipal Junior Civil Judge, [\/ahabubnagar. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court ma1 stay all further proceedings, including execution of orde. 10.06.2025 passed in A.S.No. 14 of 2023 on the file of Lea'l Judge at fiilahabubnagar and judgment and decree dated -- O.S.No. 1O1 of 2011, on the file of the Hon'ble Principa, Mahabubnagar, pending disposal of the Second Appeal. r|nstances stated in ire pleased to grant and decree dated ed Principal District 03.2022 passed in Junior Civrl Judge, Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ROHAN ALOOR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: --- The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOU RABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA SECO ND APPEAL NO .479 of 2025 THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER,2025 Between: Ar-rupali Ram:rst'arnY arrrl l5 tlthcrs ANI) Dr. IvI. Nirtnzri:r Devi zincl 5 otltct-s Appell:rnts Re spon dents JUDGMENT: Lleard Sri Rohan Aloor' lcarned counsel for the appellants oIl the qur:stion ol aclmission' Perused the record 'lhis Second ApPeal

2. Judgment and Decree in A'S No 14 of 2023' datcd 10'06'2025 prclcrred aggrieved bY the IS onthelrlcofthclcartlcdPrirrcipalDistrict.Judgeat Mahabubnagar, confirming the Judgment ar-rd Dccree tn O.S.No. 10 1 of 2O I t dated 17 'O3'2O22 on the lile of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahabubnagar -!-;

3. The Respondent No. 1 origir-rall1. filer : suit si.cking relicf of perpctr-ral ir-rjunction ztgainst the :rppt,ll ,rts her1i1 ancl re spondcr-rts 2 to 6 u,ith rcsltect to propct cor-rsistinq oi. agricultural lar-rcl to :lr) extent of Ac. 1.,l Gts. ,:)r_lt of' Ac.9.33 (its. in S.y.No. i54/2 sitr-rarted :r1 yr:r r rlorr<1a Villagc-. Mzrhabubnagar Mandal and District. l'he Il ,; ror-rc1c.nt No.1 claimed to have purchased thc suit schcdr_rle I-r )por.1]r tlt r.ouglr a lt:gistercd sale dr:ed frorn apltelianl Nos.2 i,L;r 3. r.r.sponclcr-rt No.il ancl latht-.rs o1- sornc of tltc. :rppellants/rr - _.,:rn<lcnt ),los.2 to (r, who were occl-rpa.ts of thc strit l:r'ci. 'li:. strit scltc:clule property is htam 1ancl. The rcspondent ro.1 si.r.urecl occr-rpancv rights certificate lrorrr thc Revr,, Lrc Divisional Officer, Mah:tbubnagar after clue enqr:ir1. I I e , r.cspor rcient No.1 claimed to be in possession and en-ioyrrr.- rt of thi. suit schcdule prope rty er.er since its purc:hasr . 'fhr: re\ cr-luc authorities have issued title deed and patta(i; perssbook ir.r far.our of respondent No.l r,r,ith respect to 1ri1 sch(.dulc property. In the year 2OO2, u,her-r there u r : in tcrfer-er-rce fri'rn appellant No.B, father of responden. No.4 :rlong \r/ith their associates, t'he responder-rt No. I lilcri su it in l I :{ O.S.No.24O of 2OO2 sceking perpetual injunction and said suit was decreed. Therealier, in the year 2006, rcspondent No'1 obtained permission from Yenugoncla (]rampanchayath for construction oi' compout-td r"'all at ouncl the suit schedulc propcrty along r'vith a room me.rllt for use b1'a watchman The construction ol compound r','all and zl room ftrr r't'atchman was meant for preventing ctlcroachment ft om others i e ' to protect tlrelar-rdlromlirtlc[grabllcrs.Whiirlthil-rgsst<lodll.rus,the daughter of Respondenl No.1 complcted hcr MBBS education from Gandhi Medical College, llyderabad aud went to United States of America lor super specialisation At that time' Responclent No.l obtained bank lo:rn from State Bank of Hyderabad, Padmavathi Colony Br:urch, Mahaboobnagar for funding her daughte r's educntiot-r by submitting the title deeds of the suit schedulc propcr as securitY On account of hnancial problems, respor-rdcr-rt No' 1 could not raise the compound wall lrom ground level to upper level'

4. The respondent No. 1 got a borewelL dug and also obtained electricity connection to the suit schedule property. The respondent No. 1 u'as not residing locally and taking 1 -- ad\/.rntage of the absence of respondcnt Nc.1 tl-r<: apltcllants hercin and r-espondent Nos.2 to 6 marlc a1lt t1p1:i to ()ccul)\. thc suit st'hedr rl. proper-t-y. Th. r'csp.rcle,1 lrr . r-csisL,,rl s.'.c.rr atte mpts. Hor,r'cver, the police did not take irrr . :rr.tion tlroush cornplai.rt u,as gir.en. In tl-re cir.curmstaltces, sL iL lirr- p(l-l)ctuill injunction was filed to safeguard the possessi,) l of- rcspondetlt No. I over the suit schedule propcrty.

5. Tl-rt: appcllants and responclent Nos.2 r r 5 lrcri.in har,<. filed writter-r stirtetrent denyi.g the czrse of r.r : 1r.r rcleltt No. l u'itl-r respect to her ownership ar-rd possessicr ovcr tlrc suit schcdulc llrop(:rt\-. Further, thc appcllanls : : r,r: expr.r.ssccl shock anrl surprise over grant of occupar]c} r i i.tf s ccrl rlicat(j b1' the Rer''enue Di'isional officer. Mahaboob.r s , r i. rar ()Lrr of resp<;ndent No.1 lrzith respect to suit scl-rt r rrlc prc,y>ertr,. According to the appellants, the Revenue Di, s;i.ral ( )lficer- has issued occupancy rights certificate i, fav.r-r. .f resp.rrcrent No.1 without putting the appellar-rts and respon r :r-rt Nos. ) to rl; on notice. Therefore, the appellants and responrl ,r-rt Nos.t2 to 6 are contemplating to prefer an appeal chaliengir r thc rssrulnce of ocr:upancv riglrts certificate in larrour of resp,t . lcnt No. I . l I i I ; i I i i ) The appeilants and respondent Nos'2 to 6 claim that 6. respondent No 1 is not in possesslol-L of the suit schedule propertY and that aPPellant No.8 and father of rcsPondent No.4 were not aware of suit in O S No 2'10 ol'20o2' ri'lrtch wers hled against them' I"urther' the appellants ancl responderlt Nos.2 to 6 contended that the total crxtent of land in Sy.No.154/2 is Ac 9 33 (]ts u'ittrout atry suirdivision numbers.Saidsurveynumllet-alsohlrslargenr-tmberof pattadzrrs and their natnes zrrc not shou't't scllaratch' in the revenue records There is no basis for t1-re bor:r-rdarics shor'"'n by respondent No' 1 in the registerecl sale deed and thc same are imaginary' In fact' the appellants and responclerrt Nos 2 to 6 arc entitled for issuance of occupat-rc:y right certihcate and the clecree in O'S'No'242 of 2OO2 is r-rot binding on them ln view o[ the foregoing, the appellants have sought rlismissal of the suit hled bY resPondent No 1' The Trial Court upon perusing the pleadings of both the 7 . parties had settled the following issues: 1 Whether the Plaintiff possessor of suit land? 1S absoh.r.te owner and a 11 6

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitl,r. for. per.nrancnt injur-rction against the defendanr:; :s Praye rl lor-?

3. To u hat relicf/

8. Thc respondent No.l got hcrself exami r rl I,Ws I and 2 :rnrl exhibitccl Exs.A 1 to A 13 in support r I ltr:r- c:rr;r.. .l.hr appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 got (, itntinecl DWs.l to ,1 and cxhibited trxs.Bi to 83

9. Thc Trial Clourt examined the oral :rrr I clo(:unrcntan evidence addttced by respondcnt No.1 an,l tht, ap1_,r,llants heru:in frrr grrtnting perpetual injunctiorr in far.o L,r r ol. re spondcnt No.l. The Triai Court exarr i ri,rl tl-rc oral doc:r.rtnentar.\' cvidence ln detail, more parti<:r r , I 11 . the r.r.oss examination of each of the witnesses i.e. p\.A/ i ;rr.rrl p\\,-l ar-r d the DWs I to 4lor ascertaining the trutlL Lr the rr.rsior.r prescnted by respondent No.1 on one lr Lrtrl anrl thc appcllants, respondellt Nos.2 to 6 on the other. i .tncl

10. The Trial Court particularly observerl L!.rat thcre is admission by DWI that they never obtained Oc: lpancy Ilights ,Cert ificate and l-re does not know whether rcs :ondent No. 1 :l j I 1 obtainccl Occupancy Rights Certificate The Trial Court further observecl that there is no evidcnce in favour of the appellants to shou' possessiou in thcir far''our' Furthcr, it is obscrved that re spondcnt No. I has llot only prodttced tlrc Occupancv Rights ccrtificatc in her lavour, but has also produccd the r-egistered sale dced atl<-l documerltary evidcncc in Exs A 1 1 to A 1 3 to dcmottstratc her possession Except for cle nf ing thc case of resportrlcnt No.1, the appellants dicl not proclrtce atrv eviderlce ir-r support ol tl'reir case of ou'nership as lcgal 1-rcils of the original lnamdars or as possessors lt u'as obsen'e(l that the appellar-rts have claimed their intention of pre lerring an appeal against the ORC issued in favour of rcspondcut No 1 utlder I]x. A4 , l.rowcrler, no cvidencc is produccd trl sullptlrt such contention. Further, it is obscrved thart the pahanics marked by the appellants under Exs'AlI, Al2 and A13 for the years 1990-91, lggl-g2 and 2O1O-it havc shown respondent No 1 as pattadar of suit schedule property' Ironically' the Exs'B1 to 83 Pahanis for the years 2006-07,2OO7-OB and 2009 10 also show respondent No'l as pattadar of the suit land lt is aiso observed that as per all the pahanies, responder-rt No' 1 is .- shou/n to be the perttadar and occupant oj I plot arrrl not agr-icultrrral lrrnd 1 i In , i,,..i of tlrc fore goiirg cvidcnt:e, , r r l-r iirl (.ourt decrt:ed tl-rc' suit in favour of respondcr No.1 lrer-ein. Ager-ievc<l br tlre siune, the appellants /dcrenr r rrrt Nos.1 ro 7. 10. 12, I3. 15, l(r. 18 to 2l have prel'errecl Fjr s r App<.a) bclore thc lea.red [)rir-rc'iP^l District .Judge, Mahnl r.b.,q.r r,,iclc: A.S.No. 1.I ol'2023. Said appeal was dismissr:rl ronllr.rnirrq thc: jurdgir-rent ancl clec:rt'r: ol ttre Trial court leadin r lo iili.g .l' thc: pt.t:sr:nt Sr:cortrl Appc,al.

12. In Second Appeal, the appellants hir r lollorving subsruntiirl questions of law: r:ri secl the 1 . Whetlrt'r rhc hnding of the First Appella r t'omrnilterl :rn-y error u,hile giving findin; I rssucs fran rt'cl?

2. Whethcr on l:rcts, the plaintiff/ Responden to have filcd a suit for declaration of tirl. scekine a relief of injunction agarl Appellants, u'hen the Appellalts hert:rr specifica1l1. raised a cloud or I'laintifl's/Respondent,s title and the poss over tlte srril schedule property? Corrrt ro the rugh t before t thc t l-re 'ssion . I i. 2I E u H T r '' --7 -- '! i 9

3. Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor rs maintainable urhen there is a dispulte u'ith respcct to the title of the proPertY and $'hen a Civil Revision Petition u'ith respect to thc grant of ORC in favour of the resporrtlclll is llerlclirrg beforc t he Flon'ble l.ligh Court? -1. Wl-rether the Plaintiff/ Rcsporld ent [rerein u-as ablc to makc out a prima facie case atld prove that he is in possession of the sr-rit schedulc' properlv as ot-r the dal-e of liling thc suit anci thcrebv entitled for a relief of permanent inj r-r nction? L 3. 'l'l-rc zrppellants have raised thc above mcntioned subslanlial questions ol law to challcnge t1.rc judgment and decree o[ the Trial Court and First Appcllate Court for granting pcrpetuall injunction in favour of respondent No. 1- For any Sccond Appeal to be entertained under Section 1OO of CPC, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india Tl-re Hon'b1e Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowdar, there need to be substantial question of law and not just question of law to be raised. Alternatively, as per I .1uJg-ent of this Court in case between Syed Abdul Quddus ' (totj) 5 s('( lll .-.--_-_-_rlHE l0 v. K. Vijaya Laxmi: and the judgment of 1tL Apex Court I ll Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki3, the .judgments of bot I hc Trial Court anr[ the First .r\]lppllilte CoLrrt have to br. pt:t-.' 1'se ol-] iicCOLl I I I of gir.ir-rg thr-' findinss on the basis of evider, c u4tich is r-rot rclcvanl or cvrclencc whicl-r is not adducecl t4 Thc juclgnrenr anci findings of the Trial r, turt har.c to bc exarlined in llrr: b:rckdrop of the guidelincs, jssued bv thc Hon ble Supt'eme C'ourt of lndia r,rrith respcct 1 ( 3nl ertairt rnen t of zr Seconrl Appcal ir1. this Court under. Sect t l 1OO of ClpC Witl-r respect to substantial question of l:rw ar I l.Nos.1 to 3, it is scen that tltr.r-c is or:rl cr..idence of rcsltor-rc ( 1ll No.1 (pW 1) herself reilerirtrrrg the lacts of the case i.e. brr ligrounrl lacts leading to fi1ing o1- thc suit for perpetuaI njunction. In addition, n:spondent No.1 got examined pW2 to provt: her posscssion. [11 l-()sp{)nse, thc appellants and re; rtndent Nos.2 to 6 have examinecl DW1 to DW4. The eviden:: of DWl and DW2 did not rlis<:rcclit the version presented b5. I lt/1 and pW2 I l0l:l SC'( ()nl rrre l\ \r, 11007) I S( (l i.16 i { 4 I I I i I

15. Coming to the documentar5r evidence, it is seen that i1 Dx.A1 is thc registcred sale deed dated 23.O4.1984, Dx.A2 is the trrte copy of proceedings issued by RDO. Mahabubnagar vicle lrilc No.I<144741i992, dated 28.O1.1995, Ex.A3 is thc trl-re copy ol' Occupancy Rights Certihcate issued by the Aciminislrative Officc, RDO, Mahabubr-rag:,1r, dated

28.O1.1995, Ex.r\4 is thc original titte deed and trx.A5 is tl're or-rginiri pattaclar pass book. The alorementioncd documetlts ar.c erhibited b1' rcsponder-rt No.1 to prove her Litlc to the suit schedulr: propcrty. It is seen that while respondent No.1 has cxhibitcd both the registered sale deed dated 23.04.19u4 undcr trx.A1 and the true copy of Occupancl' Rights Ccrtificate under Ex.A3, there is no title deed in favour of tl'rc appellar-rls and respondent Nos.2 to 6 16 Thc appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are claiming to be the legal heirs of the original Inamdars, but have not produccd any evidence rn proof of their ownership or the ou,nership of their forefathers over the suit schedule property The only documents produced by the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are Ex.B 1 to 83 certif-led copie s of ,+ t2 pahanis lor the -r,ears 2006-07, 2OO7 08 anrl 20()9-lO. Said patranies, instcacl ol sr-rppor-ting the case of 11r. appcllalts ancl respondeitts 2 1o (r. :;rrpporl thc case of respo - : en t No. l botl-r u,ith respcct to t>u'net-ship as u,ell as possessi;-r. 'l'hc certified rt ll3 'bv the copics of Pahirnies rnarl<t,d ur-rdcr Exs.B I appellants and rcsponclent Nos.2 to 6 clcarlv r1l rtorrstrate that the name o[ resporrrk:nt No.I is rccorcled as p r tadar as well as l)ossessor ol' the surt st:ltcdule propcrty. li: rtht:r, thc suit schedule l)roper-tv ils per ltahanies marked r I cler. Exs.IJ 1 tcr 83 are not shor.r'n to l)c. :r.qr-icultural land but ; slrou,n to be divided into pk>l s. Thus, ri'ltr:n thc alspect of til l: js r.onsiderecl, it is seett that the cviclenc.c adduced by reslr -clcnt No.1 is morc credible r:ompared to thc eviclence arI h_rccd by the appellants and rt'sponde:nl Nos.2 to 6.

77. Witl-r resl;ect to tht title of responder t No.1 as a purchaser from the sllcccssor in interest < I the original Inamdar, t he learned counscl for appellants h , ; rc:lied upon judgment of this Court in case betrveen Execr tive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, MahabubnaEir r District v. ! I I l i i d !l ii! n H )l t I E ; i Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others+' wherein' it is -) held as belo'uv: '?, Whilc in B. Ilamctr<ler Recldr" and othcrs vs l)istrict (', rlLt t'tor, livclcrabirri atrcl othe rs [1993 (2) An.W.R. S+ (Dts)], thc Division Bench held that the Inamclerr lt:rs no right to alienate a land erlreadl' lest<'tl in t he Statc, in S Vcera Redcly and anothcr v. Cht'tlapali Chanclraial-r ancl others f MAN U /r\l'lO glO llgg4), auother Division Bench hekl that slrch alicnation is valid and enforceable lrr thc sr-tbsequellt purchaser to secure ORC This rcquires L urtsirlt t;rlitrtr anrl rcs<llulion' I I'rc conflict of opinion that +. Thc iss ue f or con sideration is whether a purctrascr of il-ram lancl from Inamdar after 20.07.1955 ',r'oulcl acqurre right to claim ORC? Incirlental issuc for consideration rvould be rvhether the pur<'haser of inam land qualifie s as a 'su<:cessor-in-inlerest' to lnamdar? ln the h gl-rt of the above discussion' u'e

58. answcr the reference as under: (2) We hold that purchaser of land from an lnamclar ls not a successor-in-interest and can not apply for ORC." ., 'lr)]: rl) Al.l) lli(ls) (Fll) ,1)* I.l

18. The above .iudement has discussion a I out the right of Inamclar to alienate tl're lirnd ',r,hicl-r u,as ah-t';r 11, r.csted in the Statc zrnd th,' issrru of- r,ilrclhcr- a purchaser r I iar-rcl i.c. Inam land qualilies as suc(iessur ilt iltterest to tht lnrrmdar. .lhis qucslion altcr- a dt:tailcd rlisct_rssirr-t u,as dc.c:irl .,1 irq:1i1151 "r.1-, purchasel r.e.. it is held that ptrrchascr ol larrci from an ln,mdar is 1r()t ar sucraesso' in inter-est arlcl i. t rr,rt appl-y lor ORC. By citirrg tht' trfirrenrcn t ionccl -judgnrcr-rt. --rc courrsel lbr appeilants sotrraht 1o nogatL' the citse of respo,rr r,ltt No.I about having title to tlre sr-rit scht.clulr. pr-operty.

19. Leante cl cor-tnsr:[ lor 1he appellants s _ brr)itte(] that respo,de.t N..1's title is rlefcr:tir.c trs she is c.l L mtng trt have purchased tht' lar-rd lrom t heir f.refather.s * I (, a re oric,tal Inamdars

20. Acccptinq lol a rnoment that the titlc o1' r- , ;tondent No.1 is defectirre, t l-rc appropriate course of rc r r :dv for the appellants rvould be to seek declaration ol I jt c to thc suit schedule q>rop.. rty. [n tl-re present suit, eve, irr ,^sc the issue of title and tht: d.lircts tht:reof arc raised, whr I r-cspondent 1 I ; i E E T t: t E ; t5 No. 1 produced Exs.A 1 to ,{4 in proof of title and there is no single document in lavour o[ the appcllants and respondent Nos.l to 6, the titlc of t'esponderrt No.1 cannot be looked into to rlcny l-rer the rclicl o1'pct-petual injuncti<>n'

21. Nou- coming to the aspect of proof ol possession' respondent No. t has produced Ex'A6 Ccrtified copy ol jr-rdgment and ricr:rec irr O.S.No.24O of 2OO2 on the file of the JuniorCivilJudge,Malrtrbubr-ragar,trx'A5-OriginalPattadar pass book. Ex.i\7 Grerrnpert-rcha1'ath permission along with approved piar-r No.86, cltrled 10.07.2006 issued by Execr'rtive Olhcer, Yenugolrda, Ex.A8-Bank Voucher, Ex'A9 ErlcumbranceCcrtificilte.Ex.Alo-EncumbranceCertificate and trxs.Al1 to A13 Paheliies lor the years 1990-9 l,l99l-92' 2010-11.'lhe Ex.AS is Incant for proving that on the basis of the registered sale dccd/Ex.A1 and the occupancy rights certificatc/ Ex.A3, the Revenue Authorities have issued pattadar passbook for the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No. 1. The Ex.A6 proves that respondent No 1 herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction when one of the appellants' forefatl'rer l-ias interfered u'ith the suit schedule -"' ,,q 16 property and that tlte suit rvas decreed in firvo rr finding her to be in possessic>n of 1i-re suit scheclule prollcr-l.r ') 2. Furthc,r- Ex. \i- ( Ir-l rn-rp:rnr:ha_r':r t h ltcr.rri ,, ; on shor.r,s Lha[ tl're Grampi Lnch:rlirtlr hzrs gir.en hc,r I ('rrrrissiolt lor construction rn thc sr.rit schedule propert-r,. T tr Ba n I< voucher trx.AB and IInr:Lrrn Lrr.ir nce certificates / trxs..^\ l i r-rrl A 1(l shorv the suit trans:rctior.t u,ltich is in larrour of r.csP r rdent No.l and the Exs.A I 1 to A I ll Parhar-ris lor the J/eitrs I ( 20 10- I 1 shoii- the' nrrmc of r.espondent No. I ) ()1 . lt)()7_92, s both patardar as well as posscssor-. In addition. as alrear[_r ;]i; to 83 Pahanis lor thr: years 2006 07. 2OO7 O ',-rssed, trrs.B 1 i aircl 2009- 1O also shorn, thc natnc ol r-esponclent No. 1 as ltir I t possessor. Thus, thc entire documentarv c-r.i< I r:lir r- as r.r,ell as 'r'tr:c produced both by respondent No. I as r.r,el I as appellzrnts, r nd respondent Nos.2 to 6 go to shou, that the name of rcsl r rrdcnt No. I is registered as the posscssor of the suiL scheclull ):-ol)erty,

23. In the face of the documentary evid<:rrr : aclduced by both the parties, it is not to be lost sight of thirr .rc zrppellants herein are merely challengir-rg the possessior r rl' rcspondent j I I z 1 a a a 1I E E a 11 No.1, but have not produced credible evidence in support of their case of being itr possessiou. In case the appeliants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 at'c it-t posscssion of the property, then it is lbr thcrn to produce evidcrrce Lo provc the same' While so, thc eviclencc procluccd ir.r the lbrrn of Exs.B 1 to 83 is nothing but a cleni:11 ol their own casc and support to the case of rcspondetrt No.1. lr-r vicw oI the documenta[' eviclcrlce which supports the 21 . case of respondent No- I of having title as u'ell :rs possession, thc Trial Court has decrcecl the suit u'iLh costs in favor'rr of respondent No. 1. When the erppellants carried the matter in appeal to the First AppclLalc CotrrL i'ide A.S No' 14 of 2023' said Court whilc discussing lhe evidence adduccd by both the parties hzrs conltrmed tl.rc findirrgs given by the Trial Court with respect to title ar-rd thc possession of respondent No' 1 over the suit schedule property and dismissed the appeal, i'e' there is no substance rn the substantial questions of law at St.Nos.l to 3. t I

25. When tu,o Courts have given a facturrl irrrling holding that responclcnt No.i is in possession of -lr r srrit s<:hedt_r1e prop('rt-v. rt is rrot r>pen befor.t,.this Court in a tr ,COncl \1;pe:ai tcr givc any l-rnding contrary to the factual flnclrr r I sr\ cn l;-y, 1rn,n the .ourls i.e the First Appellatr: Co,r-t artd lr r .l'r i^l crurt. l, fact. u,hen thc documentarr,, erzidence cliscus. _.d il, thr_- Trial Court and tltc F-it'st Appellartc Court is c.r,rr rinr.rl. tltere is trr;tl:irrg to cotne 1o a. linding thart the findinr,: o1' sirid cor-lrts rlre ltascd .rr coltsiclerins irrcler,:rnt cl.ialr , L , )r ie,lt(rri.g relc'rrr.t cvid.rr:e. Ilather, the Iindings ol'b.t lr rh{ cor.lr-ts arc on the basis o[ thc documcnts cxl-ribited br lr r lt llte pat-tir:s and sound appreciatior-r of the cntrics mitdc r:r.irr. i.r:. lhr- substzrntirrl qucstion of law at Sl.No.4 has r-ro lr,r;is rrnd (]i,lnnot come to tl're ai<l of :rppellants lor entcrtaining rr S r,corrd Appcal.

26. Once thr: possession ol tl-rc propertv is Iruld to be ir-r favolrr of respondent No.1, in a suit for porp(.l1 irl rn junction, the title czlnnot be examined. In the prese nt ll ::orrd Appcal, tt-ie sin \ in titlc gular issue that is emphasised vehementl r is the defect of re sltondent No. 1 . Hou,ever, in a su i lbr. pcrpetual tn3un<:tion. u,h<:n prima facic casc of posscssio r :; 1;roven and l ,' I'L , { I I ! , h l9 interlerence is prot'en, the balance of couvcnience is held to be in favour of the possessor and thus, perpetual injunction has In the instant citsc, slllce possession ol suit to be granted scl-redule propcrtY r,r'as lound to be in lavour of respondent No. 1, perpetual injunction u'as granted' Assuming for a moment, there is any defect in the title of respondct-tt No 1, the sarrle cannot be examit-red in tl'tc stlit filcd b1' her seeking perpeLual injunctiorl. Thc proper course availirble to the appellanls would bc lo cllalletrgc Lhe titlc of respondcnt No I by hling a Suit for cleclaration' Witlrout t:rl<ir-rg such a recourse, denying her title without challcnging thc ORC issued in f:rvour of respondent No.1 rvould bc ol l-ro avzril' Until the ORC granted in lavour ol resporlclerlt No l :rnd the registered sale deed executcd in favour ol respor-rdent No l under trx'A 1 arc set aside, the titte of responden t No 1 cannot be challengcd. Hence, on this coutrt too, thc appellanLs have no case to challenge the findings gi'"'en b5' the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in favour of respondent No l' In view of thc forcgoing discussion, this Court is of the 27. considered opinion that there are no tncrits in the case of 20 appellants for cntertaining a Second Appeal r Llcr.SecLior-r 1OO of CPC and tht. same is liable to be clismisst.r I 2n. in thr. r,'sult. lhc Secot-rcl Alrpt.al is I :;ntissecl tr1 LIrr stagc of tr<lt.nrssiorr. No costs Misccllancous applications, if an-v, penclir , in thrs Scconcl Appcal, shail s l i_rrrd clr;sed //TRUE COPY// ;]/- A.V.S. PRASAD i] :PUTY REGISTRAR '..\..- \ecrroN oFFrcER To '1 The Princtpal Junior Crvil Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Princrirai District Judge at Mahabubnagar. 3 One CC to SRI ROHAN ALOOR, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copres l)r /PSI w ,! i I I i HIGH COURT DATED: 0211212025 ( ('t -t c ),, F. .',,i}l;-:... 2 4 1' 2'126 /a [,. .[) ii! {tsl 'I : I * JUDGMENT SA.No.479 of 2025 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION C,{dq. \Q ,