SEC TION OFFICER vs L. B. Nagar

-..Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 202,i Petition urtdr:' order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of R/w 151 OPC pra.'ing that in the circumstances s'atec n the affidavit filed in support or the; pe.ition, the High Court may be prle as (xi to grant Injunction in favour of the petilionersiappellants in respect of the sLi: schedule property i.e., Plot Nos. 3t), 37, 38 and 39 admeasuring 63ii.€(; square yards in Survey No. 7 situated at Iialapur Village, Saroornagar lviarrcjil Ranga Reddy District, T.G., penciinll disposiri of the seconci appeal in the irrte ,rest of justice and equity and to pass suc h tther crder or orders as the Honorable I ourt may deem fit and proper in the ci'cun stances of the case. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that the suit sr;ireciuie proporty P:ot Nos.36,37,3ii anci 39 admeasuring 639.86 square yarrls in Survey No. 7 situated at Balapur 'villag-', Saroornagar Mandal. Ranga Flerl,i y District, bounded by: North.Rcird South : Rc ac East . .i[r \Virir; Roaci West. Plo: Not;.32,33,34 & 35 Counsel for the ,Appellant : Sri M.Qureshi, representing Sri Saleha Begum Counsel for thc' lles pondents The Court cieiivere J ihe following : JUDGMENT : - - - i It I HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.520 of2024 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is hled questioning the judgment and decree, dated 18.09.2024, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in A.S.No.232 of 2013, whereunder and whei'eby the judgment and decree, dated

06.06.2013, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar , in O.S.No.770 of 2010 was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants before the trial Court. For convenience. hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed O.S.No.770 of 2010, seeking perpehral injunction in respect of the PIot Nos.36,37, 38 & 39 admeasuring 639.86 Sq.yards in Sy.No.7 at Balapur Village, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred as 'schedule property'). ln the plaint, it is avened that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property having ) ) * {r, , 2 LNA, J SA.No 520 of2024 1 i purchascd tlre ,clrne fiom Smt. Uma Bai, under a sale' decd w lich was not regrsl(.r( d .retbre Sub Registrar office, but registoi'ed befc re Gram Panchayat,rn 11.06.1979 by paying a stamp duti o1 Rs i2050/-' After purtli rsir1, the schedule property, said Uma B:i aJrplicl for the constructi tt 01 'touse, however, he could not make rlonltrtl( rion due to lack ol .inr,: and that the said Uma Bai, perlec ted her title by adverse p,rs .c:;:,ion and executed gift deed on 27'05 2 00!t in 'avour of the plaintil s: 1l at the plaintiffs came to know that cleicnd rnt No 2 along rvirr ril nrolher tiled o.s.No.975 of 2008 belirre lt A.lditional Junior Cli;i .l .rdge against G. Raghunandhana Chary arrd lo'r others lor perpc'-u rl i n jtLnction and got temporary injunct i cn itr r' :spect of lancl admeastrt-trg 20 guntas and that defendant N:.2 ras ro claim over thc s :h,:rl ,rlc propetty. Defendant No. I intt:rferecl with the possessio I ru t0.12.2010 by removing boundary st'lnes anc plaintiff todged a c rn-ltlaint with Pahadisharif Police Station on l) 12'2010 and the si.n e ,r i,s registered as Cr.No.433 of 2010. g11ns1;. li-lr : Suit'

4. De[e rdanr Nos. I and 2 filed written statement dt:nyir g all the altegatior s madc in the suit and stated that plaintLff never in 'r'as possession ol'tle schedule property and the suit is filed onl l to grab I 3 LNA. J SA.No.520 of2024 the schedule land; that suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs alleged to be separate owners ofdifferent extents to an extent of 639.86 sq.yds and they did not pay separate court f'ees; that sale deed under which plaintiffs are claiming ownership is invalid and no title is conferred and the same is not registered before Sub Registrar Office; that document of Uma bai is only agreement of sale and as such this suit is hit by provision of Order Il Rule2 of C.P.C., and gift deeds executed on behalf of the plaintiff are also invalid as Uma bai did not have any title. Det'endants filed suit in O.S.No.948 of 1998 before I Additional District Judge for Sy.No.7, 265, 276 & 370 of Balapur Village and Sy.No.48 of Roshandowla Village, against B. Yadagiri and others and the same was decreed and appeal is filed in A.S.No.36 of 2003 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It is further averred that the land in Sy.No.7, falls under purview of HUDA and no approved layout from HUDA has been filed and however, O.S.No.975 of 2008 is pending and also the receipts issued by the sarpanch dated

21.06.1979 and 22.06.1979, shows that there are lot of variations. It is fufther averred that there was no cause of action arose against defendant No.2 and he is in actual possession of the suit property and ) ) s I G 4 LNA, J SA.No.520 of2024 plaintifl.s i ro rliy trying to obtain injunction agai .rst the dclendant No. I , to l( rJU f ,\' the schedule property and prayed tc disrniss the suit

5. Ort tht: lrrsrs of thc above pleadings of both the prrftiet, the trial Courl lramr:d lre lollowing issues for trial:- ''( l) lih,-.tttcr the plaintilli are entitled to perpetwtt itiJtltlcl ot1 .t'o [') aS ltn tl t' (' (21 7i rliu telicf? "

6. Or rclrrr I of the plaintiffs, PWI to PW3 we,re :xarrined and Exs.Al tc .\.i.1 u,ere marked. On behalf of the deft:rdants, )W.lwas "*uolinsllarxl l:xs.Bl to 88, were rnarked.

7. Attc [rll-lledged trial andupon considerirrg the oral and documenta 11 r viclcncc and the contentions of both the parlic'', the trial Courl dis rr is: t tl the su it, r,lde judgment and decree clatec 06. )6.2013.

8. The .rir Couft categorically observed as hereunder:- "it i; .stt't, llutt one K.Narsing Rao is examined cs PII'..i wlto hu. s,titt tt) hot,e purchased.four plots from deferulant Yo.2 antl thty :tt" ttlso re,gistered befitre Balapur Gramp,:tncha.vot and statc I i\ i, he fttrther solcl 301 sq.yards to one luf slim p,: son antl i1 t tt sale deed instead of plot numbers b.locA: nunt'rcrs or( t tenti)nc(l and he is a witness in those doc,unents. tt is t I I 5 LNA, J SA.No 524 of)024 seen thal the PIl.3 did not file the said sale deeds alleged tct have purchased from defendant No.2 in plot Nos 26, 27, 29 & 30 which are said to have executed on 8.7.1979 and which are said to have registered before Balapur Grampanchayat. He admilted in the cross that he did not get the document registered which is he purchased and staled that he sold away lhe property to some others. It is seen that plaintiffs have Jileel total Ex.Al to A3l and they also marked Ex.A32 to A34 in the cross oJ DW. I . "

8. t. The trial Courl has further observed as hereunder:- "On perusal of evidence, it is seen that deJbndant No.2 has come into the witness box and deposed and he also faced cross eramination and marked the documents. It is seen that when deJendant No. I and 2 has filed common written stamen and v'hen theyhave jointly contested the case eilher of the defendant can depose onbehalf of all the defendants, as such the above said ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is seen that though the plaintiffs alleged that tt criminal case is registered against the defendantNo.I but he did not mention as to what is the ultimate result of the said criminal complainl. The defendant counsel argued thal since no separale boundaries are shown lor each plaintilf as per their gift deed in the plaint and since the original document under Er.A8 is not bearing any boundaries and since the said l. U*o Bai-did not take ony steps to get original sale deetl from I defendant No.2 and since the defendant No.2 has denied the p,"-+. --1 LNA, J SA.No.520 of2024 6 \'( t.\ (,: t'rtLion of sale deed ulder Ex.A8 and as E-r,18 r: only uLtl ?rilt ttl of sale, as such lhe plaintiJls oughl to lntc s,,ughl .fb '' dctlttration of litle and since they did ]tot se?A dtt)) drct:tt,r i'rn ld as the bomrdaries shov,n by iheht [u': not 1tr o1,et ,t,td tts lhe .suit propert) is ,tot demarcalcl, d.t sLt( h the plLi,rli,ls ore nol entitled for dny relief of perLetual itt:tr,tcti,t t lt is -seen tlnt v:hen tlle very title of tl,e p'uirl lfi is dtn,etl tt,ul tlispttted b-v the defendant and whett the plct, ntiffs ht.v,'.ll,l,d to establislt that they are in possessiort rtf tlt,' suit prol ei t.)' tt-s per the boundaries shown in the ploml uul vhen thz.t rita 'toL eslablish the cause of action and c,: tlul, di l rtot -shctt ,tt,t ctutse o.f actiott against lhe defbndant t\b.,1 ancl ;ince thz 'll' I hirnselJ adrnitted in llrc cross that deferdar.t l\tc I is n(. r'o.\ ':)ttc(,rtted with thc suit sclrcdule properl-.), oit .tuctt the pl,ti,tlr,'i; cue. not entitled.lbr any relief of perpetual , njttn:tion as tl ?'.. /i ilcd to establish their case. "

9. Agririer ed by the dismissal, the plaintiff prclerred a)peal vide A.S.No..ll.l ,rl20l3 arld the first Appellate Court, br:in[, the fina1 fact- finding (rrrt rc-appreciated the entire evidence anc material availablr: (,n rllord and dismissed the Appeal,vide its .jrrdgrrrent dated

18.09.202-1, tLcreby, confirming theiudgment of thr: trial Ccurl I 0. TlLe Ii ':;t Appellate Couft in its judgfr3n1 ob;.erved as t- hereundt:r - 7 LNA. J SA No 520 of )D4 "To substantiate the case of the pldintilfs. the plainti"f no. I was examined o.\ Pll l and the attestor of the Ex.A8 as PW2 and one of the purchaser who purchased the plots from the defendant. no.2 as PW3 and got marked Ex.Al to A34. Though in the appenrlix o.f the et'idence Ex.Al to 43l were menlioned, but in the Jutlgment of lhe trial court Ex.A32 to A34 were discusserl. Mere non mentioning of the documents in the appendix oJ the evidence is not fatal to lhe case oJ the plaintffi as Ex.A32 to A34 were discussed in the judgment. "

10. l. The flrst Appellate Court further obserued as hereunder:- "Here in the case in hand, PWI who is lhe plaintilJ' no.l admitted in tlrc cross examination that he did not file any documents to show his possession over the suit schedule property from lhe date of the purchase till the date of the filing of the wit and moreover in the cross examination he admitted that in Ex.A3 to A7 it is mentioned thal it is acquired property by virtue of ancestrttl properly. As per the case of the.plaintffi Smt. Uma Bai purchased the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex-A\. But as per Ex.A3 to A7 Sml. Uma Bai acquired the suil schedule propert.v Jrom her ancestors. There are material discrepancies with regard to the prima facie title and interference and contradiction in the evidence of the PWl. Therefore, the plaintilJs failed to prove prima facie title, possession and interference of the defendant nos.l and 2 over the suit schedule property and so that the ratio laid under the above case law is not applicable to this case. I I t 8 LNA. J .5A.No.520 of 2024 '-1 Tht 1 !ct.t'ri.l/.t have to eslrtblish the prima .facie title ctt o the suit st h./t,l(. property, but the evitlence of PW2 cotlpled vilh Ex.,l8 u,t 1 A31, the plainti/ls ./ailed to prot'e th. pt itnQ I t.ic tille o tl ctluintt/fs over the suit scltedule propert.t, Thougl the triu, trnrrt discussed about the title of the plaintil.li aonor i.e. Smt )n t, Bai elaborately, but lhat discus.siort hos 'to n uch. weiL;h ,,tt't regard 1o the holding oJ-the possessiort over lhe. suit s( lt(..lule properly of the plaintilJi" I 1. H,:ard li.i M.Qureshi, representing Mrs. Salcha Ilefu n, leamed counsel li r t r : appe llant. Perused the entire mat Jrial av tilable on record

12. Ltn,ncrl counsel for the appellant contended that the .rial Court as well is first appellate Courl committed error in clisrrrissirrg the suit as well irs arrln)al on improper appreciation of the Lnatt:r'ial placed on record. [,e ]rtrr)rl Scnior Counsel lufther coutended tlat tltoullh Ex.A32 to Ex.A3.l !'/r)re marked, the satne were llot tnention:d in the Appendix ol t rc judgment passed by the trial Co.rr1 and therefore, judgment ,rf lhi: trial Court as well as first appellatc Cotrn ar e liable to be set asir e -eamed Senior Counsel would furth,:r strbrni. that sale deed date L .06.1979 was executed more than -il) vt ars back, thereforr', .hr: same ought to have been considered, roure\/c , both the I ) ) I LNA, J SA.No.520 oJ2024 Courts committed error by not relying upon the said document. Leamed Senior Counsel further contended that both the Courts have recorded perverse findings and failed to acknowledge the possession of plaintiff, based on the evidence adduced and tlie material placed on record and prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate Court for proper adjudication, since apparently the Appendix of the judgment, does not refer to Ex.A32 to Ex.A34. In suppoft of his contention, leamed Senior Counsel relied upon. the judgments of Hon'ble Div[5isn Benchs of this Court in (1) R. Parijatharu and another Vs. M. Kumeshwari and otherst, (2) Pothuraju Mysaiah Vs. Potharaju Sudarshan and others2and (3) K.Nagashree and another Vs. K. Mahesh Kumar.s 1 3. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Courtconcurrently held that plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of sale deed document dated 21.06.1979, which is admittedly un-registered. Therefore, Gift deed executed in favour of the ptaintiff does not confer/lransfer any title to the plaintiff. Both the | 2017 (s) ALD 348 (DB) r 2023 (s) ALD 163 (TS) ' 2023 (s) ALD 801 (rs) (DB) t I \ l0 LNA, J SA.No.520 of2024 courls I'a 'c cc llcurrently held that plaintiff failed t. prrvc rossession over the I r:he c ule property and the trial Courl obser..etl .hat pW. 1 during tire crc ss-examination admitted that defenda rr ]'Jr-r. r rs no way conceme d *'r lr the schedule property a.d therefore, plain tiff is not entitled 1b' rt:lir:f of perpetual injunction as they fail,:tl tc cs irblish the case. So la r' ; s ron-mentioning of the Ex.A32 to Er .A-l,l in ,\ppendix of trial (lr u't . udgment is concerned, it is releva,t t, re er to the observ'ati rr I I the first appeltate cour1, whereir. it ri,; s clearly recorded tital ]lx.A32 to Ex.A34 were marked ,.1unrrg t lc cross- examinat on ot DW.l, which was reflected in tre App endix of evidence ol tlr,: plaintiff and were referred discussr:ri arrd <:r rnsidered by the trial (, orrr1 in its judgment. Therefore, the contentir,n of the leamed S:r ior ilounsel that Ex.A32 to Ex.A34, tlLrrugi-r ,t rrkccl on behatf ol tl : p l aintiff were not referred and consi(l,rre(l br, 16. giul court is fircruall, inco.rect. In the above Judgmcnts re.ricrl upr n by the leamed Scu r)r'(lsun5sl, the facts of the case and docurne,ts rraced on record were neit.her examined nor considered. In lhe presr nt case, docurnents ron r onted during the cross of DW. 1 o r behal . of the illaintifl q e"e r'r:amined as Ex.A32 to Ex.A34 anrj u,r:rc efened, I discussed ar',J 11,n.16"..d by the trial Court. Tl-rere.lbre, jur lgments / ,/ LNA, J SA.No.520 of 2D4 mentioned by the learned Senior Counsel are not applicable in the present case. 14- In considered view of this Court, the leamed counsel for appellant faited to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Seconci Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions ollaw in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

15. It is wetl settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'bleApex 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 first Appellate Cour1, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record

16. Further, in Gurtlev Kaur v. Kak/, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeat cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration. \ \ ' (2007) l supreme Court Cases 546 * a i I l t2 LNA, J 5.1.No.520 of2021 11 Hl v nr: considered the entire material available or1 r.rcord and tl-re findings I ( ( olded by the first Appellate Court, this tlour I, f tnds no ground o e:scn wan'anting interference with the slid finclirrgs, under Section I 0, ) ( I I).C. Moreover, the grounds raised b,r' tht: aPlre[lant are tactual ir ni]trre and no question of law, much ess a :ubstantial question ol larv arises, for consideration in this Secorrd /rp1re,rl.

18. Hcn,:c. t;ic Second Appeal fails and the sa uc rs a( cordingly dismisserl i t ll(j stage oladmission. No costs Pe'rr rns nrscellaneous applications, ifany, slirll stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD t PUTY REGISTRAR \ SEC TION OFFICER /ITRUE COPY// i To, L. B. Nagar

1. TheX Addl D sitrict and Sessions Jr-rdge, Ranga Reddy llistr ct at 2. ll Addl. J rr o' Oivil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at t B Naptar 3. One CC tc Sri Sialeha Begum, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Ocpit:r; ry- HIGH COL'RI' DATED:21 l0ai'2925 JUDGMENT' SA.No.520 of 2024 ..?-' ,('... +" sr,r r4, 9a { J {; \ q ltl itlN 2o6 , \. t ";, lrCrr(('! (r 3 C) .L DISMISSING 'THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT CC,STS 1 (, t,