The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, leamed counsel lor the appellants and Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, leamed counsel for respondent on admission. Perrrsed the entire record.

2. 'The Second Appeal is preferred by the respondents/p laintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2025 in A.S.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the leamed IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar ('First Appettate Court'), wherein the j udgrnent and decrec dated

05.06.2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civit Judge, Mahabubnagar ('Trial Court'), has been set aside by reversing the decree of perpetual injunction granted in favour of the pla intiffs/appellants herein. \_* l \ RY.J sA .+49 1025

3. The backg.round facts of the case are that the appe lants herein have filed a suit of perpctual injunction against the responden.: herein to rcstrain them from interlering with the suit scl.redule property c() Lsisting of plot to an extent of 1,00() square vards in Ward No. I , Block rlo. 10 situated at S.S.Gutta, Mahabubnagar. 'I'he appellants claim that or : Sardari Begurn was the original landlord owner at S.S.Gutta, Mahabuhr i 1ar. She has sold 1000 square yarcs ol'land to one Aniaiah Goud under a r.: iistclcd sale deed and said Anjaiah Coud has sold the propefty to Shaik \1 Lhaboob and also one Yousul Be,t purchased 500 square yards of Larr, under separate registered sale died and Syedunisa Begum purchased 5l( square yards lor Sadari Begum. l.lier Anjaiah Goud sold the 1000 squart yards of land to Shaik Mahaboob his legal heirs have sold said land to th : rppellants. Shaik Mahaboob sold the land to Ilabeeb Mohammed and Hab,: b Mohan'r rned in tum old the lanc to the appellants and delivered vacar t posscssion. The appellants have also obtained municipality permission f: ' constmction of compound wall and a room in the strit schedule propefi). In prool of their title and possessi,rn, the appellants have relied upon Ex.rl I registered sale deed document No.59211963 dated 12.06.1963, Ex.A-2 rc1 istered sale deed document No.l9,ll/2002 dated, 14.05.2002, Ex.A-3 repi tercd sale deed document No.59/2003 dared

06.01.2003 and Ex.A- 1 permission of municipality, datcd 2 t. 10.2003 While the appellants intc ded to construct 2 j RY,J sL 449 2025 compound wall and room, there was interference liom Bala Krishna Reddy and therefore, a suit in O.S.No.383 of 2003 was filed seeking perpetual in-iunction, but said suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, in the year 2008 when one Sayad Izaz Shoukat Ali intert'ered with the appellants' possession and the suit in O.S.No.328 of 2006 was filed and the same is pending. The said Bala Krishna Reddy filed a petition to irnplead himself in O.S.No.328 ot'2006 and he is impleaded as def'endant No.3 in said suit. Wlrilc things stood thus, on 05.01.2014, 10.01.2014 and 21.01.20 l4 there was interference in the suit schedule property by the defendant/respondent herein with attempts to forcibly occupy the land of the appellants. Therefore, suit for perpetual injunction has been filed.

4. 'lhe respondent has filed written statement claiming that he is owner of 577 square yards of land having purchased from BKI{ Estates. The said BKR Estates purchased the land from Nizamunnisa Begum and Nizamunnisa Begurn had purchased said land from one Sampath Kumar. Further, it is the case of the respondent that Shaik Mahaboob and his legal heirs have flled O.S.No.30 of 1981 against E. Kishan and others for declaration ol title over 1000 square yards of land and said suit was dismissed. Flaving failed to prove the title before a competent Cout, Shaik Mahaboob has sold the suit schedule property under false sale deeds to the ) J 3 1 \ RY.J sn 449 1025 vendors ofthe piaintiffsiappellants. It is pleaded that the r rle deeds and link documents of th,: appellants do not contain suruey numbt s and extents and boundaries. [t ir; pleaded that the appellants' vendor's 'endor i.e.,, Shaik Mahaboob did rot have title and therefbre. he could no )ass better title to Shaik Mahaboob and Shaik Mahaboob, as such, the app< lants do not havc title to the suit schedule property. ln fact. the suit chedule propefty includes 577 sq,rare yards of land rvhich belongs to tlr, respondent. 'l he appellants are atLempting to encroach into the land olthr respondent is the verslon presentr:d by the respondent. Further, it is rleaded that the appellants liave llled suit in O.S.No.383 of 2003 against the vendor of the respondent seeking pcrpetual injunction and said suit wz.r dismissed. Then, the appellants pr::ferred C.M.A.No.12 of 2014 and the sEr re was dismissed Ther6after, the srit in O.S.No.383 of 2003 itself was disr .issed for delault To sum up, the respondent pleaded that the appellants do -rot have any title or possession over the suit schedule propefty and ther,r cre, they are not entitled to relief ,rf perpetual injunction

5. The appel,ants filed rejoinder, alleging that dismir sal of O.S.No.18 of 1984 was on tcchnical grounds and therefore, saic iudgment cannot operate as res jttdicata. Furlher, it is clarihed that the r riginal sale deed dated 1 2.06. 196.i r.vhich is in favour of vendors of the rppcllants u,ould 4 RY,J sA 449 2025 prevail over the sale deed of the respondent which is later in time. It is further emphasized that there are no details about the vendor of Sampath Kumar fiorn rvhom the respondent is claiming title. Ret-erring to the contention of the respondent that there is no survey number in thc sale deed and link docurnents of the appellants, it is pointed that the documents relied upon by the respondent also do not contain survey number

6. The respondent has relied upon Ex.B-l certified copy ol plaint in O.S.No. l8/1984, Ex.B-2 certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. l8/1984, Ex.B-3 judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.955/2004, Ex.B-4 cerlified copy of O.S.No.383 12003, Ex.B-5 certified copy of the judgrnent and decree in C.M.A.No.l2l2004, Ex.B-6 certified copy of the judgment, Ex.B-7 original registered sale deed document No.6l88/2013, dated 0l .06.2013, Ex.B-8 original registered sale deed document No.3673/2000, dated 27.11.2000 and Ex.B-9 original registered sale deed docur.nent No.164/1975, dated 06.09.1975 with Engtish translation. 7 . Upon examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Courl came to a conclusion that the version presented by the appellants about purchasing the suit land from Habeeb Mohammed, who purchased from Shaik Mahaboob and in tum Shaik Mahaboob purchased from Sardari Begum in 1963 are supported by Exs.A-l to A-3. It is held that the 5 \ RY,J sA 449 2025 respondent did 'rot file any documcnt to show from wh,r 'L Sampath Kumar purchased the lz:nd and Ex.A-4 was filed belore the Cot I , but P.W. 1 stated that he does no, knorv about O.S.No.383 of 2003 bein: dismisse d against Bala Krishna Reddy. I{eferring to the documents of r.l-r respondents, it is held that Ex.B-,' shorvs the capacity ol Bala Krishna Rc, dy i.e., his role in representing BliR E,states Private Limited and his c I racity to executc Ex.B-1. It is herd rhat Ex.B-9 shorr,s rlrat Nizarniunis.,., Segurn purchased the plot from Sarnpath Kumar who rvas a minor as 1 :r Ex.B-9 and is represented by guardian lather G. Raghaiah. It is obser,, 'd that there is no denial of purchase ol 1000 squarc yards from Sardari I,, gum and children of Shaik Mahaboob by D.W. 1 and denial of the said trar action for lack of knowledge was tot the reason for discarding the conten r of L,xs.A- I to A-

3. The Trial Corrrt has lreld that it leels that plaintiffs/a1r ellants herein are in actual possession of the suit schedule property har'. rg purchased the same from the righthrl owner as all the documcnts are lilr I on behalf o1'the plaintiffs/appellants. Coming to the ob-iection of non-it[, ntification of the suit schedule property,, it is held that Ex.A-j shows t l , boundaries and descriptions of the suit property together with r:i asurements and boundaries and therefore, discarded said objection and I oceeded to grant decree of perpetual rnj u nct ion. 6 RY,J sA 449 2025

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the leamed Trial Cour1, the respondent has prefened A.S.No.27 of 2023 belore the learned First Appellate Courl. In the appeal, the First Appellate Couft has considered the pleadings, the evidence and the findings of the Trial court and proceeded to examine the grounds ofappeal. In grounds ofappeal, it is contended that there is a cloud on title as vendors' vendor ol the appellants who admittedly fited suit in O.S.No.18 of 1984 for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to scheduled property of 1000 square yards against three parties and said suit was dismissed on merits by judgmcnt and decree under Exs.B-1 and B-2. When said persons have lost the suit, they do not have any right to sell the suit schedule property to the vendor of the appellants by name Habeeb Mohammed under Ex'A-2 and the appcllants cannot purchasc thc suit schedule propedy from him under Ex.A-3. It is ernphasized that no tegal right or title passed to the vendor of the appellants under Ex.A-2, as the appellants' vendors have lost suit under Ex.ts-2. There is admission by P.w.1 about his vendor's vendor losing the suit lor declaration of title and recovery of possession' Therefore' according to the respondent, there cannot be any transfer of title under Ex.A-2. I t 7 RY..I sA ,+49 2025 9 It is held that the Trial Court overlooked crucial r missions rnade by P.W.1 to the eflect that the appellants have purchasr lthe property b1, taking responsibility of gerring all tlic title disputes r.es ,lvec1 at their orvn costs and that said adrnissions show that the appellants are not hona.fitle purchasers. It i)r contented that on account of'cloud r,, :r the tittc of the appellants suit for injunction simplicitor is not marrr rinable and there ought to have bt:en a suit fbr declaration of title

10. In appeal. the appellants herein have filed Order )l ,t Rule 27 of CPC to receive original registered sale deed docun-rent No. j '3 of 1963 and to replace the samr. as Ex.A- I . lt is noticed that said docurr,, rt was filed along with the suit bur. not marked, and since no prejudice ,,io ld be caused said interlocutory appl;cation in I.A.No.39-5 of 2023 has be,.r a[lor.ved. Having allowed said intertocutory application, the First Appell: : Couft hcld that the main'suit was filed for relief of lterpetual injuncrir r with respect to 1000 square yards of land which is purchased by th: appellants under Ex.A-3 registered sale deed document No.59/2003 darr<

06.01.2003.'lhe vendor Habeeb Mohammed under Ex.A-3 purchased tto r the legal heirs of Shaik Mahabortb under Ex.A-2 registered sale deed document No.194112002 dated 14.05.2002. The propefty is solcl ry legal heirs of Shaik Mahaboob to Habeeb Mohammed 8 RY,J sA 449 2025

11. It is the case of the respondent that when there is a serious cloud over title of Shaik Mahaboob as per the civil suit in O.S.No.18 of 1984, when said Shaik Mahaboob died during pendency of the suit, his tegal heirs were included as plaintitts in the suit. The suit in O.S.No. 18 of t 984 was for declaration of title and recovery of possession u, "uid.n..d under Ex.B-l and B-2. Said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated ll.O4.2OO2. Since the legal hcirs of Shaik Mahaboob have lost the case fbr declaration of title, they do not have any right or interest to sell the suit plot under Ex.A-2 to Habeeb Mohammed and Ilabeeb Mohammed in turn had no right and title to sell the suit land to the appellants.

12. It is also observed by the First Appellate Court that O.S.No.18 of 1984 was erroneously dismissed on account of non-examination of attestors to the registered sale deed. Though, such a finding is untenable, it is held that untit unless said judgment is challenged before a competent Court and that judgment and decree are set aside, said judgment and decree continue to be in force. However, the legal heirs of Habeeb Mohammed have not preferred appeal and said judgment and decree have become hnal. Having lost suit for declaration of title, the legal heirs of Shaik Mahaboob did not have any right and title to pass under Ex.A-2 to Habeeb Mohammed. Further, rbference is made to the oral evidence of P.W.l about dismissal of { t 9 \ 7 RY.J sA 449 2025 the suit in O.S.No. l8 of 1984 and its knowledge. It is l- :ld that the P.W. I suit schedule trropefty was purchased knorving thr. earlier round of litigation, whercin the appellants har.e taken responsib,i i v to cleal the title disputes at their own expense. It is held that in spite t,r' raving knowledge about the disptrte over the suit schedule property. t r appellarrts havc purchased the suit land. Since there is serious cloud ove. he title of the suit schedute propeny, it is held that mere suit for injunctiorr i not rnaintainable and that title or possession accrued by the appellants li I r their vendors is not rightful. On the basis of aforementioned r.easoning., I re First Appetlate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by il.t -['rial Coult.

13. AggrieveC by the judgment and decree passed br.r re First Appellate Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred Second \ rpeal, ralsing the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether the lower appellate Court .justified by par s and decree against the appellants/plainti fls b,r lo[[or.vinr res judicata under Section 1l of CPC. u'hero the sLriL i per delault firr non-prosecution the res judicata will ap I filing suit or not? ng judgment principles of as clismissed i subsequent B. Whether the lower appellate Court rightly considorec the judgmenr passed by the trial Court in O.S.No. 12 ,r there is specifically no mcntioned the sur,",er. nurnber c I also in the ljnk document filed by the respondcnt's ,.'r arriving the wrong conclusion and passing the judgnrr.r against the appellants/plaintifls justified or not? or perverscd 201:1. rvhcn the land and lor's vendor - ancl dccrec C. Whether the lorver appellate court arriving the ur.or raising the clouds against the title of the propertl br I conclusiort considering 10 RY,J sA 449 2025 I.A.No.395 of 2023 receiving the original regd. Doc.No.i93/1963 dl.12.06.1963 marked as Ex.A-5 not? sale deed vide is title deed or D- Whethcr the appellants/plaintifls are in actual and lawful possession of suit property and rvhethcr the appellants purchased suit property liorn the righttul on'nerl' L,. Whether thc appellants har,e given the correct descriptions of the suit property or not in cornparison with the respondent schedule property having no any surve)' number in the registered document as rvell as link document filed bv thc dclendant?

14. When the above substantial questions of law are considered, it is seen that none of the questions are actually related to the findings given by the First Appellate Couft. Coming to the question at Sl.No.A, it is about passing judgment and decree on the basis of principles of res judicata under Section I I of CPC. The First Appellate Court has not relied upon the concept of res judicata while passing the.iudgment and decree against the appellants/plaintiffs. The First Appellate Courl merely referred to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.18 of 1984, wherein, a suit lor declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the vendors of the appellants herein was dismissed i.c., the suit filed by Shaik Mahaboob was adjudicated, during its pendency Shaik Mahaboob died and his legal heirs have lost the suit. After losing the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession the legal heirs of the deceased Shaik Mahaboob have executed Ex.A-2 registered sale deed document No. 194 1/2002 dated t t L7 ;c RY,J s.,\ 449 2025

14.05.2002 in f;rvour of Habeeb Mohammed. This discr ision of sequence of events does have a discussion about the flow of titk: rs claimed by the appellants, but has no reference to the principals of re^s j,L'icata

15. Coming to the substantial question of law at St \o.B, it is about O.S.No. 12 of 2014, where there is no specific mention cl survey ntrrnbcr in the link document of the respondent's vcndor. A perusl I o1- the documents marked under both A series and B series do not show. a r rel-erence to anv suit in O.S.No,l2 of 2014 and said substantial qrr srion of law is completely baseless

16. Now, the substantial question of law at SI.No r is rel-ercnce to I.A.No.395 of 2023 rcceiving document No.593 of l9r casting a doubt over ,the title of the appellants. A discussion of the F i.r .Appellate cour.t with respect to <locument No.593 of 1963 does not rai: ( anv cloud about the title of the appellants. Rather, the contents o1' I rs.B- I and B-2 judgment and decree in O.S.No. 18 of 1984 have b : ome crucial for holding the title :rgainst the appellants. 17 . The substantial question of law at Sl,No.D is aboul rctual possession of the suit prol)erty by the appellants and whether ;aid properly is purchased lrom the rightful owner. It is seen that excep. iling Exs.A-l to A-4, since the plot is an open plot, there is no means fbl yr tving possession I RY,J sA 449 2025 over said property. Such being the case, as per the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy r, with respect to immovable property which is open plot, possession fbllows de jure title. The First Appellate Courl has made a correct assessrnent of the title and possession of the respective parties, whereas the Trial Courl has made a grave error in not examining the contents of Exs.B-l and B-2 i.e., judgment and decree in O.S.No. l8 of t984.

18. Lastly, the substantial question of law at Sl.No.E is about description of the suit property and its comparison with the respondent's property and the respondent's registered document not containing the survey number. It may be true that the respondent's documents do not contain survey number. However, as per Section 101 of lndian Evidence Act, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiffs/appellants, who approached the Court and they cannot rely upon the weakness of the respondent's case to seek declaration of title.

19. A perusal of the judgment and decree passcd by the Trial Court shows that there was hardly any discussion and comparison ofthe contents of Exs.A-1 to A-3 vis-d-vis the documents marked in B series under Exs.B- 1 to B-9. More particularly, there rvas a need for examination of the title of ' lzoosy + scc s9a I I 13 RY,J SA r1.+9 202-s the appellants .zis-d-vis the judgment and decree pas-,,e I in O.S.No.18 of 1984 under Exs.B-l and B-2, as such, a study or sl ,rtiny wor-rld have shorvn that the appellants title was delective for the sirr rle reason that the appellants' vendor's vendor had lost a suit for declr rtion of title and recovery ol por;session. Having lost the suit, insteatl 1' challenging the same by \ /ay of appeal, the legal heirs of Shaik Mah:t rob have cleverly sold the suit ;chedule propefty to Habeeb Moharr red and Habecb Mohammed in turn sold the suit land to the appellants lrr: :in.

20. Now, corning to the case of the appellants, t I appellants have clearly adrnitte<l that they have knowledge about thi earlier round of litigation i.e., in O.S.No.18 of 1984 and their vendor,s , :ndor having lost to the suit for title and declaration of title and recoven, .. 'possession. The appellants were confident about contesting the litigaticr and clearing the dispute over titlt: and with such confidence have purcti ;ed the suit land. Once the adrnissions made by the appeliants through er, i: rnce of P.W. 1 are taken into considelation, it is seen that the appell:r .s had complete knowledge about cloud over the title of the suit land v,r h the rcspondent claiming 577 sqtrare yards out of total extent of 1000 sqrrr ie yards u,hich is the suit schedule propefty. In spite of having suc r knowledge, the appellants have liled a suit for injunction simplicitor bv r .rppressing about 1,4 { RY,J sA 449 2025 the result of earlier suit in O.S.No.l8 of 1984, which was disposed of in the year 2002. This conduct shows that the appellants had knowledge about the dispute over the suit schedule land and that they purchased the suit land by undertaking the risk of clearing the title dispute. Fur.ther, the knowledge about losing the suit in O.S.No. 18 of 1984 shows that the appellants' vendor's vendor i.e., Shaik Mahaboob did not have possession over the suit land. When the vendors ofthe appellants did not havc possession over the suit [and, there is no question of delivery of possession of the same to the subsequent purchaser i.e., Habeeb Mohammed and Habeeb Mohammed could not have delivered the possession of suit land to the appellants ) ) herein

21. In view of this fact situation and the documentary evidence adduced before the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the q t judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is based on sound appreciation of facts and law, whereas there was failure on the part of the T'rial Court in assessing both the facts and the evidence together with application of law. As such, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellants are baseless and not connected with the findings given by the First Appellate Couft. Said questions are 15 -H RY,J sA 149 2025 about lindings of facts which cannot be examined by thi; iourt in a Second Appeal under Section 100 ofCPC. In view of the foregc i g discussion, this Court sees no rexson to entertain the Second Appeal an,l -hc same is liable to bc clismissed

22. In the re;ult, the Second Appeal is dismissc I at the stage ol admission. Misr:ellaneous applications pending, if an1., : rall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/. N. CH,\,IDRA SEKHAR RAO I EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The lV Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar 3. One CC to SRI N4OHD GULAIU RASOOL, Advocate [C'l UC] 4 One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate [- 'UC] 5. Two CD Copies ADI(SAw , I 1t) HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 JUDGMENT SA.No.449 ot 2025 t I I '.-.) : sTiilS 1ri i[s tut LJ n DISMISSING THE SEGOND APPAL AT I HE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS v, 'gY r\h6