High Court · 2025

3. Smt. B. Sui Household, Dist. ana, Wo.B.S. Koteshwar Rao, Age about 39 yrs, Occ-u. -Ryd. u.tto.o- t -22 1, Sadashivpet Village and Mandal, Sargareddy ... Res pondents/Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 of CPC prayang that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased.to suspend the Judgment and Decree, dated o7.08 2024 in A.S.No.19 of 2020 on tt|e fib of principal district Judge at Medak, pending disposal of tt1g abone Second Appeal. Counse! for the Appellant :SRl JELLI KANAKAIAH representhg SRI NARENDAR JALLI Counsel for ttre Respondent No.1: SRI KOLUKURI AKHIL REDOY The Corrt delivered th€ following: Judgment E:T_:.: f- HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE I"A:NW IARAYANA ALISHETTY sEcoND APPEAL llo.524 of2O24 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is frled challenging the judgment and decree dated O7.O8.2O24 in A'S'No'19 of 2O2O on the frle of the Principal District Judge at Medak, whereby and u'here under the judgment and decree dated 07.11'2019 in O'S'No'9S of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur was confirmed' 2. Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Advocate' representing Sri Narendar Jalli, leamed counsel for the appellant on record. 3. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants. For convenience, the parties are hereinalter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court'

4.Thebrieffactsoft]recaseasaverredinthepl:eintarethatthe ptaintiff trled suit for perpetual injunction re strarning the respondents/defendants from interfering with [he peaceful possession of plaintiff of agricultural land admeasuring 0 I 1 guntas' ' in survey No. 268/A1 of Chitkul village of Kowdipalty Mandal' Sangareddy District (herein after referred to as suit schedule property). Originally, the land belongs to ancestors 'rf plaintiff and after death of father of plaintiff, it was transferred in his name and his name was mutated in revenue records; that durrng life time of l I I I I I I I I t I I I I |. I I i I : ' ,.n.nr.rrofflii father of plaintifi they have raised several crops and due to scarcit5r ? of water the plaintiff kept the suit land as barren; that plainti{I erected temporaqr tin shed for keeping buffaloes; the Defendants without any right, title or interest over the property tried to inGrfere with possession of the plaintiff on 21.08.2C.23 and tried to trespass into the suit land. The plaintiff resisted the ir acts but the defendants threatened to dispossess him and hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.

5. Defendant No. I frled a written statement and denied the averrnents made in the plaint and averred that originally land admeasuring 0.31 guntas in survey No.268 belonged to the father of the plaintiff, and uncle's of the plaintiff viz., N. Kista Reddy and N. Narayana Reddy and the same was sold in favour of A. Manik Reddy through a simple sale deed dated O5.02.1957 and in return said Malik Reddy sold the same in favour of defendant No. I on O1.10.1990 tirough a simple sale deed; that when defendant No. 1 approached the revenue authorities for mutation, he was informed that mutation cannot be efkcted since the suit land was occupied by the residential houses. However, on request, the revenue authorities conducted a survey only to an extent of land admeasuring Ac. O.O9 guntas and when the revenr:e authorities were conducting survey, the plaintilf came to the land and obstructed and tried stop the survey stating the sairC land belong to him. Defendant No.t having 3 LNA, J 5.A.No.521 of 2021 knowledge that his vendor has not mutated lald in his name and to avoid future litigation got executed a registered szrle deed in his favour by the plaintiff to an extent of Ac. O.09 guntas by paying sale consideration, thereafter the defendant has been in continuous possession. It is further averred that tJle plaintiff with the support of uneven revenue entries had developed a malaflde intelrLion and hled the suit for wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the suit'

6. The trial Court based on the above pleadings framed following lSSUC "(i) Wether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction a-s praged for? (ii) To uhnt relief " To substantiate the case, ptaintilf examined hrmself as P'W l l, and marked Exs.A. 1 to A.6 and examined P.W.2 who is a third party to the suit. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to 8.22 and also examined as D.Ws.2 to 5 wl-ro are the third parties to the suit. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary S evidence dismisse d the suit uide jtdgment arld decree datcd 07 .l l.2Ol9 with the following observations: "(i) Ex.B.6 tt;hich b the 18 ROR for the gear 1989- 9O suggest that one Sn. Ram Reddg S/o Narayan Reddu is the patled.ar cnd possessor ouer ianl admeasuring O.1 1 gunta.s of land in su"uey No.268/ A1 and Sri Durga Reddg the platntiff herein is the pottedar and possessor ouer rand .- .-. 4 LNI, J 5.A.No.521 of2024 dmea.string O.1O gurtas of land. in Sunny No.28/A2. Thercfore, in Ex.B.9 ttthich b th'e paluni for the gear 1997-98 tlwre ts a suapping of psitions Mueen Ramreddg ard plointiff tuittout there being ang proceeding number lowwn to tle lotowledge of the mentianed L€st retErurc ofaial. (ii) Hotoewr, ansideirq the Ex.B.6 which is tte IB-ROR Nomoona for tle geor 1989-90 just before the dienation of land uide Ex-8.2 by plaintiff stanus plainiiff as pattedar and possessor for land- od,nea.*ring O.1O gunfas of bnd uhich tuill leoue just land admeastring O.O7 Wntds of land afier the albnatbn of hnd admeasuing 0.O9 Wntns to defendanl No.l. Had if the plaintiff filed the suit along tuith tle Ram Reddg jointlg as referred in ExB.6 rutst taue entitled tlem for the relief but ulen the dain$f hauirLg lefi uith no land extending a.dmsasurirq O.11 guntas in his name just rclgtng by the entries in pa.hanies and suppressing the fad of aliennting admeasuring 0.O9 ganfas of bnd in fatnur of defendant No-l diues thb h$t to form an opinion that plointiff approacled this Court with no clean hand claiming the e*itabb relief of perrytual inllnction. Fwthe4 tDlon tte title of tle plointiff rs ot stake, nere suit for prptual injunction basing lust bg the entries in 4hanies ruill rct fortifg the claim of tle plai,t{f.'

9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 07. L | '2OL9, plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.19 of 2O20 before the Principal District Judge, at Medak. LNA, J S.A.No"521 of 2021 10. The frrst appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence of 5 trial Court on record and dismissed the apped vide its judgment and decree dated 07.Oa.2O24 with the following observations: "i. As per Ex.A.8 patnni for tLe gear 198344 an ertent of O.1O Wntas., in surueg No.268 uas reflected in the name of Krishna Reddy and an ertent of O.17 guntas in Surueg No.268 was reflected in tle nane of Noragana Reddg. Euen as per Ex.A.8 doanm.ent the father of plaintiff Kista Reddg ha.s got O.16 guntns of lond bg 1983 84. The plaintiff admitted *at in 199O he las sold O.O9 qtntas of land to defendant No.7 und.er Ex.B.2. If the said O.O9 guntos uas deducted from the so.id O.16 Wntas then th.e remoining land uould be onlg 0.07 guntas. In these circumstances, the plabrtiff did not giue any explanation o.s to hout an ertent of O.1O gunto.s or O. 17 quntas of land u.tos antinued in his nome in Suruey No-268 in reuenue reards. ii. As per desciption of plaint sctedule propertA, the boundaies for O.11 guntas of land utas slaum a,s on East: House of defendant No.l and. Gouind Rao, West: PWD road, North: Land. of Ram Red.dg and South : land. of Veera Reddy. As per Ex-8.2 the registered sale deed exeqtted by plaintiff in tte name of defend.ant No.1, tlqe boundories for 0.09 guntas of land- uere sLaum as on Eost: Gouind Ro.o agiculture land on West and Nor1fu land of ptaintiff and on Soutfu land of Naragana- As there i.s ambiguity in tlle pleodirqs of tle plaintilJ in resryCt of the total ertent possessed bA him, th.e burden b upon the plaintiff to explain dearlg as to uhich ertenl uta,s sold to dekndant No.l, tuith specific boundctries to identify the suit schedule proprtg on grounl, u ,n^,, S.A.N,'521 of2024 iii. Euen afier ansideration of tLe additional euidene produed. bgthp pbintiff, tle plaintiff faild to prow thllt he hr.s got 0.11 gurtn's of lond still stod in his name afier alieration of propertg to deferdont No.1. The plaintilf did rot fle ang sketdt map of tle suit *ledule propertg of his a usin brother Ram Reddg, so o.s to lo@te tte prcWrtA on grcund. Identtfrntion of property on graund. with specific baud.aries is essentbl for exea..tion of relief of perpetual injundion- iu. It is tle pbintiJf ula has opproochcd tle Coun seeking equitable relief of pryefital injunction and the plaintiff failed to produe ang c-lear ond agent euidetce for propr identifiation of suit sctedule property on ground and his phgsical possession on the suit scLedule proryrtg, utith ieid.enfal proof of his title ouer the suit schedule propertg of O.11 gur*as., of land- As such the plointiff is not entitled for the relief as proged in the suit". 11:. Aggrieved by tlre judgment and decree dated 07.O8.2O24, th.e present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. Iz. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff would submit that by the judgment arid decre€ pass€d by the first appellate Court is not in accordarrce with Order 41, Rule 3l of C.P.C. He would submits that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court have not properly appreciated tlre documentaqr evidence placed on record by the appellant and carte to an erroneous conclusion. l,earned senior counsel for the appellant would further submit that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and therefore, he has right tote over of the same, but the respondents/defendants are 7 LNA, J 5.,1No.521 of 2021 claiming the same without any proper documents and this aspect was not properly appreciated by both the Courts and thus prayed to allow the aPPeal. lr. A perusal of the record would disclose that both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove Litle as well as possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Property' The trial Court has observed that plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands and seeking injunction simpliciter, basing on the entries in pahanies when there is serious dispute with regard to title of plaintiff. 14 The first appellate Court has specifically observed that appellant/ plaintiff failed to produce clear' cogent evidence as to identity of the suit schedule property as well as physical possession and further observed that appellant/ plaintiff failed to offer any explanation as to how land to an extent of 0' 1O $mtas or O' 1 1 guntas of land was mutated in his narne in survey No'268 in Revenue Records r:ven after executing Ex.B,2 in favour of respondent No.1 alienating an extent of Ac. o.o9 guntas. During the pendency of appeal, appellant/ plaintiff trled an application vide I'A'No'242 of 2024underSection22Tof'CPCtoreceivepahaniesfortheyears 1977, 1978, 1983 and 1984 and the said application was allowed and the same were taken on record and were considered by tl.e first appellate Court. The trial Court and appellate Court have passed the F 8 s.etr".sztffli) judgment and decree on proper approciatkxr of law and facts and this Court rrras not find any reason or ground to interfete with the impugaed judgrnent.

15. In considered opinion of this Court, the learned senior counsel for the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this second appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in ttris appeal are factual in natwe and do not qualiff as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section lOO C.P.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of tl.e Apex Court that in the Second Appeal frled under Section lOO C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurent findings arrived at by the first appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

17. Further, in Gurdea Kqur a. Kd./rlr, 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 lOO C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration. 18 . Having considered the entire material available on record and the Frndings recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings of first appellate Court, under t (2007) 1 Suprenre Court Cases 5,16 9 Section IOO C.p.C Moreover, th are factual u1 nature and no question substantia-l question of law arises for consi s.A.N,.sr4:fl;i e grounds raised by the respondents of law, much less, a deratron in this Second AppeaL #" Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the shge of admission. No costs. Pending miscella.neous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII h' sD/_ DEPU+'i:dS+ifR \ r SECT@N OFF'CER I I To, ;jfuqffi-k#-**ffi?:rff,,., --" ' ' ^uvocate foPuc] ADKrer ? ft- I I l i HIGH COURT DATED:23106t2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.524 of 2024 .. ,/'. /?. :, -t 1. I I i.- 1li : :j i- \ \- ., \\ ^.\ '. .\ 0 4 il8l/ 21125 "1 tF- DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STATE OF ADMISSION WTHOUT COSTS ( \A- .)( \s \o