The High Court · 2025

Ilcard Sri N. l'ravcen Reddy, Icamed counsel t-o r : e airpcllants ott adrnission. Perused the entire record.

2. -the Second Appeal is pref-ened aggrieved b1 t I : judurnetrt atrd declee in A.S.No.36 of 2024 dated 01.07.2025 pass-''1 bv tltc lcatnc:d [)rincipal District .ltrdge at Vikarabad ('First Appetlate (' ) rrt']. conllrminc the.judgrnent and decree in O.S.No. 118 of 2016 dated () ',06.1024 on thc file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vikalrrlr d ('trial Courl'), wherein a suit filed fbr declaration of title and recover\' ' l'possession has been decreed in lavour of the respondents/plaintiffs direct ng the appellants herein/defendants to deliver vacant possession of tl e sr-rit schedtrlc property- \..- RY.J sA 465 2025

3. The brief facts of the dispute between the appellants and the respondents herein are that one Ycnkathala Balaiah \Yas a conlmon anccstor o1' thc appcllants and the respondents. After the death of said Balaiah, all the properties $1iich stood in his narne r.r'ere mutatecl in thc name of his wife-Yenkathala Bichamma. Alier the death of Yenkathala Bichamma, the property devolved otr her sons b1' narne Yenkathala Bhimaiah and Yenkathala Hanrnaiah. I'he saicl prope(ies wcre mutated in the name of the eldest son. Yenkathala Bhirnaiah, though both were in joint possession and enjoyment ol the propcrtics. According to the respondents, Yenkathala Bhimaiah and his brother [ [anrnaiah have cultiVated thc land in Sy.No.121lA, admeasuring Ac.3-,l2 gtrutas along with land in other survey numbers situated in Altipur Village, Dhartrr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, upto 1991-1992. Thereafter, the properties were partitioned between Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah orally'. The land in Sy.No. l2llA to an cxtent of Ac.3-12 guntas a1 Allipur village has l-alten to the sharc of the lather of respondents i.e., Bhimaiah. Thc father of thc rcspondents died in the year 1998, leaving two sons namely Yenkathala Ananthaiah and Yenkathala Ramulu. After the death of Bhimaiah, the sons i.e., the respondents have applied for mutation in revenue records with respect to land bearing ;$f.No.13alEE, 181/A, l2llAand l34lAA to an extent olAc'2-00' Ac'1-06 guntas, Ac.3-12 guntas and Ac.2-00 respectively at Allipur Village' Dharur 2 :ffiyz1- ii+\{{ .t:-:.{ ./- -, /' I{\'.J sA 465 2025 Mandal o1'Ranga Reddy District. The said mutation procc( ( ings have been elfccted and thereufter, entries were made in books of rect r I of rights. I'he respondents rvcre issued r ith title dced passbook all,l 'r'er,: rccci"'ing amouuts undcr li.lthtrbandu. The rcspondents obtailled larlk loatls b1 submittin!. the original title deed of the suit schedule pril.) 'l't\r as securitv The t-ather o1' thc appellants i.e., Hanmaiah died lea" ng bchind thc appellants as lris legal heirs and successors. The appellarr s have no riglrt or cr the propctl)' belonging ttl the respondents. It is the I ]sp()lrdents \\'ho arc jointll,cultivating the land in Sy.Nos. l2llAl2 and lll l, \/l to an extent ol Ac. l-ll guntas xnd Ac.l-21 guntas totaling to Ac.3-l ) guntas rvhich is thc suit schedule property. Since the respondents were a,.r :d and were not hav'ing money and tnuscle power, the appellants dispr,: 'icssed thetn on

08.06.1016 leading to filing of the suit for declaration of t tle :rnd recover') ot'possessiorr

4. -l'he case ol'the appellants is that actual partitiott [r, twecn l]himaiah and Hanmaiah took place about 30 years ago and they att in posscssion of- the respective lands. Bhirnaiah being the elder son, al the lands were mutated in his narne after the death of their mother Il r hamrna. Further. Bhimaiah and Hanrnaiah have purchased other lands in iL dition to the suit schedule propefty. The lands continued to be in the nan L, of [lhimaiah till 3 RY.J SA 4(r5 2025 the year 2002, but the appellants are in actual possession and cultivating said land. The mutation proceedings rvere obtained and revenue documents rnarked under Ex.A-l to A-49 were obtained beltintl the back of del-endants i.e.. appellants herein. As per oral partition. the sr-rit schedule propefly belongs to the appellants and they are in phl"sical possession ol thc said land tbr more than 30 years. Therefore, the qucstion ol dispossession ol the respondents lrom suit schedule propelty on 08.06.20 l6 does not arise and it is concocted only for the purpose ol gLabbing the suit larrd. In support of thc case of appellants, Ex.B-l to B-4 are nratked i.c.. certified copies ol pahaniesfortheyears 1971-72, 1975-76, l98 l-81 and I99[-92.

5. Upon considering the extensive docutnetrtarl" evidence filed by ttre respondents in support of their case fbr declaraLiorr of title and recovery of possession under Exs.A-l to A-49 and Exs.B-l to B-4 filed by the appellants, the leamed trial Court held that rclationsl.rip betwcen the parties is admitted, that the lands were partitioned bctween Bhimaiah and Hanmaiah after the death of Bichamma, and that some more propefties al'e acquired and oral paltition took place. It is observed that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants i.e., D.W. I and D.W.2 have admitted the occurrence of name of respondents in the rcvenue rccords issuance of old pattadar passbook, new pattadar passbook and that the appellants did 4 I{Y.J sA 16-5 2025 not object 1br issuarlcc of pattadar passbook in favour of tlr respondents' Irurlher, thcre is admission by the witness D W' I that a:l: the death ol llhirnaiah the suit selredule property ivas mutated in th: niunc o1- the resl)ondents. It is held by the [earned trial (]r rft that the r le yeal 2001 pla in ti ffls/rcsponden ts herein are absolute owners fiom onri,ards and their Ilatlles are rcflected in the pahanies ttrr he years liotr 1005-06 to l0 l3- l -1 and nree seva pahanies for Fasli l411 marked under' Ers.A-18 to A-43. F r-rr-rher, rhe titte is also evidenced r thc pattadar passbooks issucd undc'r Exs.A-47 to A-49, whereas the an I :llants failed to pror e their casc ol'the possession by producing material er i lence. It is held that once the respondents have discharged their burde I of proof witli respect to titlc and possession, the onus of proof shifted to , -re appellzrnts kr show oral par.titioD and their possession over the suiL schedtrle Iand. However., no eviclcltcc is produced to prove the possession rl the appellants or er the suit lands. It is hetd that the cross-examination rf tlre rvitnesses examined on behall- of the appetlants reveals that the ,' spondents har,c pattadar passbook and new pattaadar passbook issued rfter introducing Dharani. No steps were taken to challenge the new prt taadar passbook issued in favour of the respondents. There is adrr i ,siorl about the respondents haviug ownership over the suit land on acccr rt of issuance of title deed and passbook. Therefore, the trial Court decreerl -he suit in favour ,\ RY,J sA 465 2025 of the respondents, declaring them as owners of the land in Sy.No.l2liAl 2 and l2llNl admeasuring Ac.l-26 guntas and Ac.l-26 guntas respectively, i.e., total ol- Ac.3-12 guntas situatcd at Allipur Villagc, Dhalur N4anda[, Ranga Reddy District (presently Vikarabad District) arrd dilectcd t[.re appellants to deliver vacant possession of thc suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have pref-erred A.S.No.i6 ol'2024 befole the I irst Appellate Cour1.

6. l'he First Appetlate Court considered the oral and docunrcntary evidence adduced by both the rival pafties, made an extctrsive discussiorl and came to a conclusion that the respondents have denronstrated their title and possession over the suit lands, whereas thc appellants herein did not produce acceptable evidence to demonstrate their title and legal posscssiotl of the suit land. It is seen that the First Appellatc Court has Ineticulousl) considered the cross-examinations of P.W. l, D.W.l and I).W.2 and analyzed the entitlement of the respondents fbr the relief-s sought in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprente Court of I ndia in Union of lndia v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.t. It is also seen that the First Appellate Court has considered the documentary evidcnce marked under Exs.A- 1 to A-49, going through the appearance ol natnes of the respondents to the exclusion of the names of the appellants. Atter an ' ntR zot+ sc agz 6 RY..I s\ 465 2025 extensive cliscussion. it is held that the respondents have pr rven their case for dcclaration o1- title and delivery ol'possession, whert:r: the appellants har e Iailcd to pro\'!- thcir casc ol- continued possession ,r surt lands fbr thlce decadcs. In r icrv of the f'actual findings, the I r ;t appeal was dismissed contirming the judgnrent of the trial Court.

7. Aggrievcd br, thc concurrent findings in favour of th: respondents by the trial ('ourt as *cll as First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is pret'crrcd hy raisrrrg tlre lolloiving substantial questions t I Iaw: a) Whcther thc cntrics in tho revenuc records constitute o irr iruntovable proyrcrtl'l create title h) \\/hcthcr a suit lirr dcclaration of title and recovery o based on cntrics in rcvenue rccords is maintainable withou the indepcnderrt source ol titlc? possesslon explaining c) Whethcr thc L ourts [rclorv are justified in decreeinl -he suit lbr dcclallrtiorr ot trtle and rcc()\cr) ofpossession on the pl-(r rise that thc dcl-endants lailcd to disprorc the casc of thc plaintiln, is not onl) contral\ to thc cstablishcd principles of law, but amoun s to pervcrsc lirrding bi both thc Courts'l d) Whethcr thc suit lbr dcclaration and recovery ol -. rssession is harred b1 limitltion as the suit is filed after [4 years {iol the datc of obtaining IIOI{ in 2002'/

8. 'fhe leanred counsel tbr appellants relied upon trdgnrent of the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt of India in the case of Jagdish )rasad Patel v. Shivnath2. wherein it is hetd as follows: 'lzorsl o scc az 7 RYJ sA 465 202i "44. In the suit for declaration oI title and possession, the respondent-plaintiffs could succeed only on the strcngth ol'their orin titlc and not on the weakness of the casc of the appellants-d efendants. The burden is on thc respondcnt-plain tills to cstablish thcir titlc to thc 'l-he suit properties to show that thcy are cntitled [irr dcclaration. rr:spondcnrplaintiff.s have ncither produccd title docutncrlt i.q. natlil- lcase rvhich is thc responde rr t-p laintil'l\ arc relling upon nor prorcd Lhcir right by adducing an1 othcr o'idoucc. As noted aborc. thc revenuc cntries relied on bl them arc also held to be llot gcnuinc. ltl anv evcnt. rcvenue entries for levv khataunis arc no1 proof ttl titlc. hut are lnere slatemonts lbr revenue purposc. 'l'hc1 cannot confcr an1 right or title on the part) relying on them 1br proving their title."

9. In the backdrop of the above citation, rvhen the case at hand ls exaniined, it is seen that the respondents to prove their possessiott ovcr sttit lands have relied upon the entries in pahanies under Exs.A- I to A-25. A-27 to A',42, entries in l-B Namuna (ROR) under Exs.A-43 and A-44, mutation proceedings under Exs.A-26 and A-45. [n addition, the respondents have relicd upon Hxs.A-47, A-48 and A-49, which are title dced passbooks of the respondents under the old and new laws i.e. ROR Act and [)harani passbook. Since Exs.A-47, A-48 and A-49 are produced in proof of title. the appellants cannot contend that the respondents are mercly relying upon entlies in ROR books in proof of title. Such is not the case. 'lhe respondents have produced Exs.A-47 to A-49 in proof of title and have produced Exs.A- I to A-44 in proof of their possession, which include pahanies right from the year 1977-78 onwards up to the year 2016 8 R\"J SA 4(r5 2025

10. Per corttro. thc appellants have produced certifi: I copies of the palranies lbr the 1'ears 197 l-i)., 1975-76, 1981-82 and l9) -92 (Exs.B-1 to I3-4). l'he contcntirin ol-thc appcllants about treing in pos; ssion of the suit scliedule lands fbL -iU y ears docs not lind any supporl ir he docunrentarl evidence producc(I. When the contention of the appell nts is that oral partition took placc about 30 vears ago between their a I estor Hanmaiah and the' plaintiffs' tuther Rhimaiah, and that they are i'r I ossession of the sr-rit lands. the onus ol'proof would be on thent to provr rossession if not title. IIorl'ever'. thc appcllants have lailcd to produce co lincing evidence to clairn posscssiorr ovcl thc suit lands lbr 30 years 1 l. When the substantial questions of law are considcr rd, it is seen that thc sr-rbstantial qucstion at Sl.No.(a) about entries ir revenue records crcating title in inrnror.ablc property is not a substantial t r estion of the law and ncither is a pnrper qucstion with lespect to facts. Ilc.h the trial Court and thc First Appcllatc Courl havc considered entries rr re\,'enue records only fbr the purpose of considering the possession of it r respondents and not as proof of title of the rcspondents

12. Coming to the sLrbstantial question of law at Sl.Nr, b), it is seen that declaration of title is not. granted on the basis ofentries r revenue records, 9 I{Y,J sA 465 2025 but on the basis of the titte passbooks produced by the respondents under Exs.A-47 to A-49 I 3. With respect to the substantial question of larv at SI No'(c), it is seetr that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not rely upon thc r.r,eakncss ol the appellants in proving thcir possession, rathe r, it is held ttrat thc rcspondents havc discharged their burden of prool' and that the appcllants lailed to discharge their onus of proof. The suit was not decreed by the triat courl and First Appcllate court on account of failure ol'the appellants to prove their. possession, rather the respondents succccded ilr proving both the title and possession upto the year 2016 6n 2cs6x6t 1rf'ttrc voluminous evidence produced under Exs-A-l to A-49 It is not out of place to [rcntion that the oral evidence ol D W' I and D'W 2 in their cross- examination is crystal clear about the title deed passbooks being issued irr f-avour. of thc rcspondents and that they did not object for issuancc ol-title deedpassbooksinfavouroftherespondents.Thesaidtitlepassbookswere never challenged and the pahanies convincingly show the possession olthe respondents over suit lands. when such categorical admissions are made, no further evidence is required to prove the case of the respondents'

14. Lastly, coming to the substantial question at Sl'No'(d) with respect to tI6 suit being barred by limitation as being filed after 14 years frorn the 10 RY,J s^ 465 2025 date of obtaining ROR in the year 2002, it is a point to ) noted that the suit is not filed for t{eclaration of title on account of att" cvent that took place in the year 2001, rather. the suit was filed in the year 016 on account of illcgal dispossession ol respondents by the appellants h: cin. Only when tho respondellts \\ cre itlegally dispossessed fiom .l , sr.rit land on

08.06.20 16. u,ithin a pcriod of two ttonths, the suit rr s filed seeking declaration ol title ancl de Iir ery of posscssion

15. It is seen tliat ell the alleged substantial questions , I' larv raised arc about l-actual finding.s eiven by both the trial Court and t I : First Appellate Courl in lavoul of'the respondents and there is no neu point much less substantial question ol- Iaw le fi to be ad.iudicated by this l.;urt in a Second Appeal under Section i 00 ol'CPC. 'l'hus, there are no nr( r ts in the Second Appcal and the sar.r.rc is liablc to be dismissed

16. In the result. thc Sccond Appeal is dismissct at the stage ol admission. I\,Iisc ellaneous applications pending, if any. s rall stand closed. There shall be no orclcr as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- N SRIHARI DE )UTY REGISTRAR ,, ., iECTION OFFICER Vikarabad

1. The Prrncipal District Judge. Vikarabad Disrict 2. T_he Prrncipal Junior Civrl Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate r f First Class, 3. One CC to Sri N.Praveen Reddy , Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies Ks/PSL 0 I@ HIGH COURT DATED:1 911212025 JUDGMENT SA.No.465 of 2025 I ' iiArtl'): (u IB ?OzE I .:, r i\_ .i, (;) i! \.+ I Dismissing the Second Appeal At the stage of admission Without costs. z)* UrrL