The High Court · 2025

7. Mohannned Shafiuddin, S/o Sri Anreer Ali, about 54 years, Occlpation: Agriculture, Machireddipally village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Sangareddy Diskbt' Telangana State. ...RESPONDENT'PLAINTIFF NO.'I lA NO: I OF 2{J25 Petition under Section 151 of C.P:C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tlre High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents/Defendants not to alielate the Suit Schedule property to others by creating third party interest. Counsel Gor the Appellant :SRl VENKATRAM REOOY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI L.VEI{KATESTTVARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2,3 & 5 TO 7:NONE APPE:ARED The Court made the following : JUDGMENT TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET"TY SECOND APPEAL No.l2 of2025 JUDGMENT The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by th' judgment and decree, dated 21.08.2024, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Sangareddy in AS.No.86 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 26-04.2018 passed by the Senior Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in O.S.No.256 of 2009 was confirmed.

2. The appetlant is ptaintiff No.2, respondent Nos'l to 6 are defendant Nos.l to 6 and respondent No.7 is ptaintiff No' 1 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shelI, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, is that the plaintift filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No'44 of 2009 dated 07.01.2009 executed by defendant No.l in favour of defendant No.2. It was averred that land admeasuring Acs.5'17 guntas in Sy.No.278lA situated at Machireddypally Village, Sadasivpet Mandat, Medak District was originally purchased in the ,rur" ^df-d.f"ndant No.l from the funds of ancestors of the \ 2 r-' LNA, J S:A.No.12 of 2025 plaintiffs; vide registered sale deed, dated 2g.{\t.1972; that though the plaintiffs seven times demanded for partition, defendant No.l avoided partition aod that without any notice o:: knowledge to the plaintiffs, defendant NcI has illegally execul ed registered sale ,feed dated O7-01.2@g in favour of defendant No.2, who is her daughter; that after coming to know about the execution of the said sale &ed, the plaintiffs approached defendant No. t and a panchayat was conducted for canceltation of tlre said registered sale deed, but in vain- .Flence; the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.l and 2 filed written statement and contended that defendant No. I is the absolute owner of land admeasuring Acs.S.17 gunras situared at Machireddypalll. Village, having purchased the sa.nre undel regiqtered sale deed <lated 29.04.1972 and hence, she exec[ieil registered sati aeea b,:aring document No.44 of 2009 in favour of her daughter_defendanr No:2 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 and retained an e;itent of Ac.0.l7 guntas. Defendant Nos.l and.2 further contended that the plaintiffs have no right to question the said registered sale rleed and prayed to dismiss the suit. r 3 LNA, J S-A.N0.l2 oJ 2025

5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the triat Court for trial: "l. Whether the plainti/fs are entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No'44/2009 dated 07.01.2009?

2. To what relieJ? "

6. During the course of triat, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws'1 to 4 were examined and Exs.At to Ex-A-14 were marked' On behalf of the defendans, D.Ws. I and 2 were examined and Exs.B-l to B-10 were marked. 7. The triat Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence ptaced on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018. The trial Court while dismissing the suit made the following observations:- " It is admitted by all the witnesses includtng the plaintilfs that there will be a recital stipulated in the sale deed so as to who had paid sale consideration. Bur, the plaintffi had tat produr:ed the document before the cottrt to verify the said fact- Even the phtntilfs had not gone through the said document to bring to the notice of this court. However, even if there was a recital in the sale deed, though the presumption is in favour of the defendant No.l, bttt -the same is rebuttal and plainttffs can establish the 4 LNA, J S.A.No.I2 oJ 2025 source of payoent of sale consideratiotl. But, the plaintifs apart from prodrcing any eridence on those lines, they themselves stated differertt versions as to the paypte4t of sale considercttton. The plairurffs are nat clear in taking a stand lohether it was purchased by the grandfather or fatlrcr fro.m the land strcceeded from the grandfatlrer or wlrcther the plaintiff hove any contribulion in purt:hasing the Ie is he plaintiffs who approachzd the court seeking for cancellatiitn of the registerea, Lale deed. Therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to estabtish that they are entitled for the said relief, Bur, the phtintilfs had absolutely rn6 mqde any ground for cant,eilation of the sale deed. It is un-disputed fact that a registered sale deed was executed defendant No_l had purchased the properqt under a registered rale deed and the some was in her name for almost .j5 to 35 years without any objection from any side and after 30 to 35 years lnter she had executed a regtstered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 under Ex.B_I. CorcequentJy, the name of defendant No.2 )ns been mutated for the schedutb property (Ex.ti_2) and even in the pahanies Exs.B_3 to B_g it is the, name of defendant No.2 i.e., being refle-s11f, as p6sse:sor and owner. So also in Ex.B_9.,' f # 5 LNA, J S.A.Nq.lZ of 2025

8. Aggrieved by the judgrnent and decree passed by the trial CouG the plaintiffs preferred AS.No.86 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Sangareddy. The first Appellate Coud re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2024. In the impugrred jufument, the first Appellate Court made the following observations: "h is the plaintffi who approached the court seeking for cancellation of the registered sale deed therefore it is for the plaintffs had absolutely not made any ground for cancellation of the sale deed. It is undisputed foct that a registered sale deed was executed Defendant No.I had purchased the proryrty under a registered sale deed and the same was in her name for almost 35 to 40 yeors without any objection from any side and after 30 to 35 years later she had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.2 under Ex.B l. Consequently, tle name of Defendant No.2 has been mutated for the schedule property (Ex.B2) and even in the Exs.B3 to 89, the name of Defendant No.2 is reJlected as possessor and owner. From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clzar tllat, no cowt shall grant the mere relief of declaration if the plaintifi being in a position to claim other relief did nol pray for it. Even a vagte idea about this provision would have persuaded the \ 6 LNA, J S.A.Na.12 of 2025 trial court to refuse numbering of the sun.. As point out at the threshold the sky racketing o..,,- prices of land has rnanfested its efect in va,ious fields including the approach of the Courts in cl.:viation of the settled norms. "

9. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and d(:cree passed by the first Appellate Court, the present Second Alrpeal is fded by plaintiffNo.2.

10. Heard Sri M.Venkatram Reddy, learnec counsel for the appellant and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. ll. Leamed counsel for the appellant subnritted that the tr.ial Court as well as the first Appgltate Court have rot considered the oral and documentar.Sr evidence placed on rr:cord in proper perspective and came to erroneous conclusions. He further submitted that the suit scheduie property was purr:hased out of the funds of ancestors of the plaintiffs, therefore, deftndant No. I is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule propertt, and as such, the sale deed executed by defendant No.t in favour o f defendant No.2 is invalid. He fi.rrther submitted that the trial Court as well as the first Appetlate Court failed to. appreciate the said fact and r l" --:-4 '7 LNA, J S.A.No.12 of 2025 dismissed the suit and first Appeal erroneously. Hence, he prayed to allow the Second Appeal.

12. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No.4/defendant No.4 contended that the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the suit and the first Appellate Court' on re-appreciation of the evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment and declee passed by the trial Court- He further contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with the well- reasoned impugned judgment passed by the first Appellate Court and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Second Appeal.

13. A perusal of record discloses that the trial Court as well as the first Appettate Court have categorically hetd that the plaintiffs having sought the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed dated 07.01.2009, failed to substantiat€ their claim that the suit schedule property was purchased from the contribution/funds of ancestors of the plaintiffs. Further, from the record, it is evident that ptaintiff Nos. I and 2 are aged about two (2) and five (5) years, respectively, as on the date of execution of sale deed dated 2Eltr.1g72, therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that they \ 8 LNA, J S.A-No.12 of2025 contributed furtds for purchase of the suit schedule property is absolutely untenable and unbelievable. The trial Court has specifrcally observed that the plaintiffs have lailed to place on reoord the sale deed date.d 2g.04.1972 unde: which the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant N,c.l and therefore, cirme to a conclusion that the plaintiffs faile<l to make out any ground for cancellation of the registered r;ale deed dated 07.01.2009 and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

14. [t is relevant to note that the plaintiffs an] not parties to the registered. sale deed dared 07.0 1.2009_Ex.B- I (Lix.A- I ), therefore, they cannot seek for cancellation of the said document. The only recourse available to the appellant/plaintiff No.2 ir; to file a suit for declaration.

15. Leamed counse[ for appellant failed to rais] any substantial question of law ro be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. ln fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are lactual in nature and do not quali$r as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.p.C I I / 9 LNA, J S.A.No.I2 of 2025

16. It is r+ell settl,ed principle by a catena of decisions of tfie Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the frrst Appel{ate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. \ t7 Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section t00 C.P.C. is very limlted and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration.

18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warrantir€ interference with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appetlant are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal. t (2@7) 1 grprerne @urt cases 5'16 l0 LNA, J S.A.No.I2 of2025

19. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the spnre is accordingly disrnissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

20. Pending miscellaneous apptications, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, /,TRI'E COPY/' Sd/. K. I ;REE RAftIA MURTHY TYREGISTRAR l I ,l i $ecnor,orRceR l. The Court of the ll Additional Distr.ict & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Sangaredc y. 3. One CC to SRl. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Advocate TOPUCI 4- One CC to SRI L.VENKATESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies pcrd/eh € HIGH COURT DATED:020512025 JUDGMENT SA.No.12 o+ 2025 ) o\' ( e, Ittl .ffi ffi /.;, ' i,).' c 2 o .\ - , ,-:/ _\ _/a/ --./. DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION o