Heard Sri v. Venkat May'r

Srinivas Nagar Colony, Near HP Gas, Sadasivpet, l\,{edak Diskict.

4. Sri Vadla @ Pagudolu Srinivas Chary. S/o Veerachary, Age 45 years, Occ. Employee, R/o H.No.3/91/1, Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, .BHEL Medak Dist, Telangana. All represented by their General Power of Attorney. Sri Vadla @ Pagudoju Eswaraiah S/o Veerachary, Age: 54 years. Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 3-91/1 , Ameenpur Vlllage, Patancheru lvlandal, Medak Dist, Telangana.

5. Sri Vadla @ Pagudoju Eshwaraiah, Sio Veerachary, Age. 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 3/91/1, Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak Dist, Telangana. ... PIaintiffs AND

1. Shyamlate Narasimha, S/o Shyamlate Pochaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. House No. 4-14, Rai Durg. Golconda, Hyderabad, Telanagana-500 008.

2. Shamlet Jayalaxmi, W/o Shamlet Shyam Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-'1 1 1, Harijan Basthi, Raidurg. Hussain Shawali Darga, Serilingampally, Hyderabad, Telangana-500008. ...Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act 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 127 of days in filing appeal challenging the Judgment and decree dated 31-12-2024 passed in AS No. 42 of 2024 on the file of ll Additional District and sessions Judge Sangareddy lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to grant injunction restrainrng the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enloyment of the petitioner over the lands in Sy. No 42 Adm Ac 0.18 Gts Sy No. 195 Adm Ac 02.23 Gts, Sy No 307 Adm. Ac 0.04 Gts, Sy. No 402 Adm. Ac. 0.34 Gts. Sy. No. 405 Adm. Ac. 0 16 Gts. Sy. No. 1064 Adm., Ac 02.19 Gts Sy NO 1094 Adm Ac. 08 01 Gts. Sy. No. 1106 Adm Ac.06 03 Gts Sy No 774lA Adm Ac. 0 07 Gts, Sy NO 416 Adm Ac 0 01 Gts, Sy. No 461 Adm Ac 1.07 Gts Sy No 1078 Adm Ac 018 Gts and Sy No. 1165 Adm. Ac. 0.17 Gts, all situated in Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal (Suit schedule properties). All that land admeasuring Ac.2.19 gts in Sy.No.1064 situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy District. by. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY North :Government land in Sy. No.998. South : Land in Sy.No.1106 East :Land in Sy. No.1094 West . Government Land in Sy. No. 1065 Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V. Venkat Mayur Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOL]R.,\I}LE S]VI-I. JUSTI(]E RIiNUKA Y,,\RA

1..\.\o.l of 2025 inhntl SFICONI) APPEA[, No.{27 of 2025 COMNION JT]I)GNI[,NT: Heard Sri V. Venkat May'r"rr, learrrcd counsel lbr the appellants ol1 admission. Perused the entire record

2. This Second Appeal is prclerrccl aggrieved b.v- thc ludgmcnt and decree dated 21.07.202i passcd in O.S.No.l046 of'1012 on the tlle ol'the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangarcddl ('triel Coum) ancl conlirrlcd by the judgment and dccrec dated -i I .12.2014 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2013 on the tile of the II Additional [)istrict and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. I.A.No.l ot 2025 is liled to condone delal' ol 127 days in liling of the present Second Appeal.

3. The briel t'acts ol thc case are that thc appellants herein hled suit seeking perpetual injunctiorr restraining the rcspondents hercin and their agents frorn interf'ering q,ith the pcacetul posscssion of the appcllants over the suit schedule propcn)/. The appellants clair.n to be joint owners and possessors of properlies o1'l..ate Iladai Kistaiah situated in several suney nurnbers at Ameenpur Village, Patancheru Mandal. Sangareddy District The said lands are ancestrai properlies and there was no division of properties. The appellants have tlled suit tbr partition in O.S.No.i2 of RY..I IA l_2025 iniand S,\ -127 2025 - 2016 on the tllc of thc VIII Additional District .lLrdee, Sangarcddr,'. and thc said sirit is pending. It is the case of the appe'[[ants that land to an extent ol Ac.l- 19 qlrntas in S1,.No.1064 is lying vacant anrl the resporrdents, wlt() iire strangcrs, arc attcmptinu to trespass and thereli)rc, tlrc suit fLrI pcrpetual injunction uas f-rlt:cl. -[hc respondents did not nrake appcaranc!'and werL' set d,\- /).r'Id bc'lbre thc trial Court. -l he appellants lrerein got c-ratuined [).W. I and got rnalked Ilx.A- I certiflcd copy of' plaint in O.S.No.,i] ot' l0l6 and Irx.A-l CI) containing photographs of thc suit schedr-rlc property. ,1. Upon considering the said evidence by refelring to Section i8 of the Specitic l{elief' Act, 1963, the trial Court held that the oral and docurnentary evidence does not establish the casc of' tlre appcllants. therclbre, disrnissecl the suit. Aggrieved by tlre suur.-, agrpcrrl r.vas prcl'errerl belbrc thc Ilrst appellate Courl in A.S.No.,l2 of 102i. The tirst appe[latc ('ourt bl' relerling to thc judgrnent of the trial ('ourt in almost r crtratirn conflrrned the same. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings. tlle preseut Second Appeal is filed raising the following substantial qucstions ol'law in the grounds ol'Appeal: l. Whether thc (lourts were right in decreeing the suit rvithout thcre beine challcngc to thc sale deed of the appellant') 2. Whether the suit (br partition is maintainable only lbr part of'thc land'? i. Whcther thc plaintiff is the co-parcencr after the propert] dcvoh.cd in the narnc ol thc respondcnt No.2? 2 RY.J lA I 2025 in/and sA, 427 )025

5. A perusal of the pleadings of the plaint and above retbn'ed substantial questions of law shon that there is absolutcly no connection between thc suit filed and the substantial questions ol law raiscd. -l-he rvas llled tbr perpetual injunction r.r itlr respect to land in Sy.No. I064 to an extent of Ac.2-19 guntas at Antcenpur Village. Patancl'reru Mandal, Sangareddy District. In a suit flled lbr pcrpetual inlunction. thc appellants have to prove prima.fitcre casc ol- legal possession, balance ol- convenience and irrcpalable loss, by u,ay olcviderrce to suppoll pleadirrgs ol'thc plaint. Irr thc instant casc, the only docurnents f-rlcd arc cerlitied copy of plainl in O.S.No.32 of 20 i6 arrd a CD containing picture s of the suit schedulc propeny. The contents of thc plaint in O.S.No.il ol' 201(r arc merc pleadings which do not create an1, rirht in lavour of the appellants herein Only rvhen the said suit is disposed of- and sonte rights are detern-rined in favour of the appellants, the appcllants herein can claim to be o'uvners olthe suits sclredule property. [or all practical pulposes, sorne other lamily urcrnbers, who ale parties to the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2016 nray also be allotted with the suit land i.e., sul'llcc it to say that thc lights of the appellants herein are not crystallized. A copy ol'plaint is not a clocunrent of titlc to recognize the ownership of the appellants over the suit schedule property. Further, Ex.A-2 CD containing photographs of the suit schedulc l -E RY..I IA I 2025 in/and Sr\ -117 1025 properl\' \vill not prove sLlr\/ey number or the extent or thc possession. Any photosraphs o1'any land can be taken and theretbrc. photographs alone do not provc p()ssr-ssion. Thereforc, dismissal ol the suit by the tlia[ ('otrrt and its corrlrrnration by the tirst appellate Courl is based on proper apprL'ciation ol- facts ol law (r. ilre app.'llants did not f.ile any title dceds, but hare franrcd srrbslrintial qucsti(rn ol' laiv No. I about decreeing the suit s hcn therc rvas no challengc'10 thc salc deeds. The appendix ofevidencc d()cs n()t sh()$, an-r' s;rle dced ol'the appellants. 'lhe main suit is filed for grant ol pcrpetual in.iunction. whercas, substantial question of Iaw No.2 is rvith respect to nraintainability ol suit tbr partition. Furlher, the relief sought is perpctr-ral iniunction ()!er the suit schedule propefty and substanlial qurstion ol- lirrv No.3 is ahout rvhether the appellants are coparceners atier propefiy IS clevolrecl on respondent No.2. 'fhe issue of some party bcing a coparccner cannot be decided in a suit lor perpetual injunction. As such. all tl.re sr"rbstantial questions ol law raised by the appetlants are baseless and are not sufllcient to entertain a Second Appeal

7. 'l'he Hon'ble Supreme Court of Inclia in Hemavathi r,. V Homtrcgowda' held that Iligh Courl can entertain a regular second appeal ' {2025) 5 scc 442 4 I{Y.J IA_1-2025 it/and sA 427 2015 purely on a 'substantial' question of larv not even a question of law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of'this Court in Syed Abdul Qucldus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, thc Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakis held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot exarnine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the pou,er under Section I00 CPC is very limited and it can be exercisctl only where a substantial question of law is raised and t-ell for considcration.

8. l.A.No. I ol 2025 is {lled to condone dclay of 127 days in liling the Second Appeal and the reasons stated arc that the certifled copy of the judgnrent in A.S.No.42 of 2023 passed by the first appellate Court 'urerc delivered only on 11.02.2025 and the appellants approached their counsel in the rnonth of May, 2025. The counsel tbr the appellants inlbrmed thcrn that appeal would be filed after Surnmer Vacation,2025, when the Courts are reopened. After reopening of the Courts, the appellants could not approach their counsel and therefore, there was delay.

9. It is seen that the impugned judgment rvas passed on 31.12.2024 by the first appellate Court and there is no infbmation about the date of filing application for issuance of certified copy of the judgment to cornpute the delay. No rsason is stated for not approaching their counsel betweert r 2024 SCC online TS 186 ' 1zoozl t scc sao 5 RY,J IA l_2015 in/and sn 417 l02s

11.01.2025 and May, l()1.5, which is a period of three months. Further, even il- thc appcllants have approached their counsel in May, 2015. an appeal coLrlcl har'.- bcen prctbned imnrediately in June, l()25. Whcn no conr incing reason is givcn fbr filing the appeal with delay, this C-ourt sees Ilo tL'its()r'l to cotrd,rne dclat . I0. In thr' rc'strlt. the I.A.No.l ol'2025 filed seeking to condone cicia-v o1- I 27 da1 s is disrrissed and thc Second Appeal is also dismissed at the stage oi- adnrissior.r continnirrg tlre .iudgment and decree dated 3l i2.:0t-1 .,\.S.No.Jl oi'l0l-l on the tlle of the first appellate Court. l-hcre shall he no order as to costs. Misccllaneous applications, il any, pending shall star-rd closed. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/i \\ To, '1 . The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, S 2. The lllAdditional Junior Civit Judge, Sangaredd 3 One CC to Sri V Venkata Mayur, Advocate [O 4. Two CD Copies Y PUC] ECTION OFFICER Kam,PSL ,A),, 6 HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 COMMON JUDGMENT l.A.No.1 ot 2025 in/and SA.No.427 of 2025 THE S t t) 3 i il|l 2rl7[ z * * l.A.No.1 of 20251S DISMISSED & SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION ,4; \