The High Court · 2025

8. Kola.S_ujatha, WoSrinivas, Age. 61 years Ryo. H.No..4-4-441C, Karimnagar Road Peddapally Town and Disstrict.

9. Butham Sunitha,, W/o.Ramesh, Age. 51 years H.No.4-4-441C, Karimnagar Road Peddapally Town and District. ( The Appellants No. 7 to 9 are broulht on record as legal heirs of Deceased Appellant No. 1 as per orders dt. 14-03-2024 in l.A.No.l06 ot 2024 ) ...APPELLANTS AND

1. Gaddala Vinaykumar, S/o.Premaiah, Age. 64 years, Rl/o.H.No. 4-4-46, Karimnagar Road, Peddapally Town.

2. The Divisional Engineer, AP Transco Peddapally Town and District 3. The Asst. Engineer, AP Transco, Peddapally Peddapally Town and District ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci't umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma' be pleased to grant stay of Judgment and decree of the Principal District ett d Sessions Judge, Peddapally passed in AS.NO. 81 of 2022 dt.02-09-20ill in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pe ldapally passed ion O.S.No. 74 of 2OOO dl.3O-1O-2O17. Counsel forthe Appellant: SRl. CHINTHALAPHANI AVANI F EDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y. ASHOK RAJ The Court at the stage of admission made the following Ju lgment: -,) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Second Appeal No.491 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri C. Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. The second appeal 1S preferred by the appellants/ appellants/defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli in A.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old A.S.No.S ol 2019), dated O2.O9.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in O.S.No.74 of 2019, dated

30.to.2017

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that the defendants were raising electric poles in the southern side of the suit schedule 2 property consisting of suit land admeasuring At .O.25 Gts., in Sy.No.739 situated towards western side of Kar mnagar road, Peddapali Village and Mandal. The plaintiff clairr s to be owrrer and possessor of suit schedule property havinll succeeded to Ac.0.25 Gts. of land from his father who was oir' rer of Ac.1.lO Gts. of land in Sy.No.739. The remaining Ac.(.25 Gts. was succeeded by his brother. The defendant Nos.l rr 6 have lands towards southern side of suit land. The defendar t Nos.7 and 8 are ofhcial defendants from Electricity Departr Lent. Without any right over the suit schedule property, the dr: bndant Nos. 1 to 6 tried to erect electric poles by encroa,l ring torvards southern side of suit land with the help of de 1 :ndant Nos.7 and 8. Said efforts were resisted and suil, br perpetual injunction is hled.

5. The defendant Nos.l to 6 denied ownership r f the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and claimed c, znership and possession over Ac.O.11 Gts. of land in Sv No.74O. The Sy.Nos.739 and 74O are situated adjacent to ea:h other and the respective parties have constructed houses n their land. The Sy.No.740 starts from Rajiv Rahadari tov,, rrds western ) t side to the house of defendant Nos.1 to 6 and they do not have any approach to their houses. The approach road was in existence for the past ten years. The Transco authorities sanctioned power supply to the house of Kola Sujatha whose house is situated towards western side of house of defendant No.2. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with said approach road and the electric poles are laid in the approach road. The Transco authorities have already erected electric poles in the house of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 towards southern side of the way. The defendants have their land about six feet from electric poles towards northern side. The surveyor has conducted survey ald demarcated the land in Sy.Nos.739 and 74O on account of objection raised by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, there is no cause of action and therefore, sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The plaintiff got examined himself as PWl and one Gaddala Srinivas as PW2 and marked Exs.Al to A9. The defendants got examined DWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.Bl to 86. Upon examining the evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding as follows: <=- 4 "13. ..... the defendants No. 1 to 6 do three wire electrical connection, the defenc: and 8 tried to erect poles for such purpose i: of plainliff as there are already poles existrn of defendants No.l to 6 houses. Therefore, t: of defendants No.1 to 6 about presence of po t but the said new work had been taken up wire connection which the defendants No.1 r been cleverly suppressing by denying their 3ot have nts No.7 the land , in front I Version s is true, lor three r 6 have need for neq, connectior-r."

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment arrd decret, A.S.No.B1 of 2022 ts preferred before the First Appellate Co.rrt. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding thz t the plaintiff has title and possession over the suit sche( ule property whereas the defendants do not have even easeme 'rtary right to use the iand of plaintiff to approach to their hous es. Aggneved by the said judgment and decree, this seccr.d appeal 1S preferred raising the lollowing substantial questi:r -rs of lar,r' 1 Whether the judgment and decree of t I appellate court in confirming the judgrr decree of the trial court and in decreein5l hled lbr Perpetual Injunction is legally su s and is supported bv evidence on record ? e lower -'nt and the suit tainable / 5

2. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally in giving its finding on Ex.B1 to 86 and appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant?

3. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally in not considering the possession of the appellants over the suit land as on the date of hling the suit when the suit is hled for perpetual injunction?

4. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally when the appellalt has proved their possession over the suit land through Ex.Bl to 86?

5. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally when the defendant witness (PW No.2) admitted that there are electrical poles up to the houses of the appellants as on the date of frling the above suit?

6. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally when the defendant himself admitted in the cross examination that there is a way to go to the houses of the appellants and they are using his land as the way to go to their houses ?

7. Whether the lower appellate court acted legally when the defendant witness (PW No.2) admitted that there are electrical poies up to the houses of the appellants as on the date of fi1ing the above suit? -ia ,.:.. dt;er- l 6

8. Whether the lower appellate court aL-l ( d legall1, u,hen the lo',r,'er court given its hnding thrr as there is no other w,ay for the defendants No. I rt 6, they, have been using the above open place as heir onll \ ray to thcir houses. In view of reasons r,r :orded, iI is clear about the existence of open placc i s way on the southern side of the suit land"?. (Par: yaph 11 of the judgment)

9. Whether the hnding of lower appeliate r. rurt that "there is nothing on record to shorrv hat the defendar-rts No. 1 to 6 are using the sai<l l ath u.ith the permission of the plaintiff when the .xistence of the r.vay / path and using the sam : by the appellants is admitted by the plaintiff/resc rndent?

8. For admitting any second appeal, ther€: ras to be a substantial law to be considered and the High lourt cannot act as a Court of third Trial Court dealing vvit I facts. It is settled law that in a second appeal, only substan ial questions of law can be considered unless there is miscarri rge of justice on account of perverse findings with respect rr facts. Only when the frndings r,r,ith respect to facts arc lerverse, arr interference can be made in the second appeal. Ir the absence of such perverse hndings, the view of the Trial lourt or the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered w.ith when 1 discretion is exercised and an alternative view is possible When two views are possible, the same does not automatically give scope for interference. The scope of a second appeal is very limited to consider substantial questions of law or perverse on account of taking into account inadmissible evidence or discarding admissible evidence.

9. The present case has to be considered in the backdrop of the settled principles of law with respect to second appeal. When the facts of the case are examined from said angle, it is seen that the Trial court has examined the facts put lorth by both the parties i.e. undisputedly, the plaintiff is owner of land in S.No.739 to an extent of Ac.O.25 Gts. and the defendant Nos. I to 6 are owners of land in Sy.No.74O to art extent of Ac.O.ll Gts. and said lands are situated adjacent to one another. Further, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are using the land ol plaintiff to approach their houses as there is no other way. Said way has electric poles from the main road to the houses' There are electric poles right in front of houses of defendant Nos.1 to 6. In spite of existence of said electric poles, new electric poles are sought to be erected in the land of plaintiff. 8 Therefore, perpetual injunction was granted. TtL s fact hnding is not interfered with by the First Appellate Cour . Rather, the First Appellato Court examined the admissions; made by the witnesses during their cross examination c: rfirming the ownership of the respective parties over their re spective land and made observation that the defendants are ,r;ing the land of plaintiff for their easemenatary right withorr . having any right.

10. The l6arned counsel for the appellan t ; / defendants referred to the observation of the First Appe lrte Court at paragraph No.19, v,'hich is extracted and produc,r I below: The overall evidence goes to shou, tf'lt the "19. suit land belongs to the plaintiff and the l: nd in Sy.No.740 belongs to the defendants, in whLr h the defendants constructed the house and thc y are using the land of plaintiff towards southern : ide of suit land as the way to reach their house. l t ere is nothing on record to show that defendant Nos;. I to 6 were using the said path u,ith the permissior tl the plaintiff. lt is also not the case of defendalt N( s. 1 to 6 that the said path is their easemen t right. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 did not claim the same i I their easement right. In the said circumstances, it i ; very 9 clear that the defendants has no right over the suit land to use the same as the wav to their house."

11. The above observation with respect to usage of plaintiffs land by the defendant Nos.l to 6 to approach their houses apparently caused interference by the plaintiff in the rights of ingress and egress by the defendant Nos.1 to 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel lor the defendants that the observation of the learned First Appellate Cor-rrt has become a basis for the plaintiff to obstruct the defendant Nos.l to 6 from using the pathway from the main road to their houses. This ground cannot be a reason to interfere with the frnding of the First Appellate Court which has confirmed that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and came to right conclusion When there are concurrent findings about the legal ownership, possession ald interference on the part of the defendants in the piaintifl"s land in the form of raising electric poles, granting of perpetual injunction is appropriate and the same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. On said count, this Court does not see any ground to interfere with the concllrrent frndings by both the Courts. The grievalce, if any for the t I 10 defendant Nos.1 to 6 with respect to their right >f ingress and egress over the plaintiffs land cannot be adrl essed in this proceeding as they may have to initiate separ.r' e proceedings seeking relief against the plaintiff. In that cont€rr t, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted th r - a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2O2l is hled seeking perpetual injunction to prevent the plaintiff from obstructing their east: nentary right. Such being the case, nothing remains for adju,l cation in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismir sed.

72. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismisse i at the stage ol admission. No co st s. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending n this second appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V.KAVITHA ,EPUW REGISTRAR \ \ i lsecttott oFFtcER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, peddapa ly , peddapally Dist 2. The Junior Civit Judge, Peddapa y, peddapally Dist. 3. One CC to SRl. CHINTHALAPHANT AVANI REDDY, I dvocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to SRl. Y. ASHOK RAJ, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies kUYPR HIGH COURT DATED:3111O12025 JUDGMENT SA.No.491 of 2025 l:} Ji ('r I c,) 21JAt'2[28 'v\ '-1 ;l t,,il .:l't'/ *-,il E!)'" * Fs_ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION I .\