The High Court · 2025

Smt. Ayesha Siddiqua, Wo Abdul Razzak Aged 51 years, occ. Agriculture R/o Majeedpally Village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet diskict. ...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF Gamilipuram yadaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Ma.iedpally village, Wargal Mandal $iddipet district. Gamilipuram Mani, S/o Sailoo Aged 31 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district. Gamilipuram Yadagiri, S/o Yellaiah Aged 51 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Slddipet district. Kunta Swamy, S/o Yadhaiah, aged 5'l years Occ. Agriculture R/o Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district The Tahsildar, Wargal Mandal, Siddipet district. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction against the respondents or their agents or any other persons on their behalf restraining from interfering into I I the agriculture land in Sy.No. 56/'1 1 Ac. 1-30 gts and sy.No. 61 Ac. .1-1s gts totar admeasuring Ac. 3-05 guntas situated at Majeed paili viilge, wargar lVrandar, Siddipet District pending disposal of the Second appeal Scheudle "A" Property That the lands bearing sy.No. 56/1 1 extent of Ac. 1-04 gts situated at Majeedpa.lly village of Wargal Mandl, Siddipet district bounded by. East: Land of Plainitff Sy.NO. 61 West. Madharam Road North: Vaagu South: Land of Mahaboob Jani Scheudle "8" Property That the lands bearing sy No. 61 extent of Ac. 1-',l5 gts situated at Majeedpalry village of Wargal Mandl. Siddipet district bounded by: East: Kunta katta West: Land of Plaintiff Sy. No. 56/1 1 North: Vaagn South: Land of IVahaboob Jani. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G. Arun Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: The Court delivered the fo[owing JUDGMENT: I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL No.514 OF 2024 I I ]UDGMENT: Heard Mr. G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/pla intiff.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appeltant/ptaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 passed in A.S.No.27 of 2023 by the principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet, whereby the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.386 of 2022 by the Additional Junior Civil ludge- cum- ludicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajwel, has been confirmed.

3. The suit was filed seeking declaration over the plaint .A, schedule property, i.e., Ac.1-04 Guntas in Survey No.56/11, situated at Majeedpally Village of Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District; and perpetual injunction over the suit.B, schedule property, i.e., Ac. 1-15 Guntas in Survey No.61, situated at Majeedpally Village of Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District. The appellant/plaintiff case in brief is that the revenue authority had issued pattedar passbook/Ex.Al for both the suit schedules but in the e-pattedar passbook/Ex.A2 only plaint 'B' schedule property was shown. Further clarified that there is no dispute in regard to Ac.0-02 Guntas in A' schedule property, as such, the extent of the 2 schedule 'A' property is shown as Ac.1-04 Guntas. However, as the defendants are interfering with the possession filed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that though there was no contest from the defendants, the suit was dismissed without proper appreciation of the materials. Hence, prayed for intervention.

4. I have perused the material on record.

5. The evidentiary rule prescribes that the burden of proof of asserted facts lies with the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Thus the burden would be on the praintiff to prove the suit clairn. irrespective of the defendant's contest. In the present suit, the specific claim of the plaintiff is that plaint 'A'and 'B' schedule properties belong to her. However, except the revenue record, no other document has been placed. Pertinently, the entries in Ex.A1 have shown that the property has been purchased by the plaintiff. For the reasons best known to the plaintiff, no document has been placed proving that foundational facts. Further, it is also weil settled that the revenue record does not confer any title at the best presumption. In the given set of evidence placed by the praintiff, the concrusions drawn by the triar and appellate Courts in regard to suit claim is found proper and justifled. \- e<, )/

6. In this view, this Court is of the considered opinion that no 3 tenable ground is made out, much less any substantial question of law, for admission and in the absence of merit, the Second Appeal is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand clos Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKH RAO E STRAR //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 3. 4. VH/gh The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet.(with records, if any) The lAdditional Junior Civrl Judge at Gajwel. One CC to Sri G. Arun Kumar, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies YV HIGH COURT DATED: 061A112025 ( q C o E STA r6: 27I{AR M a t Og s PArr-'.$ t:O JUDGMENT+DECREE SA.No.514 of 2024 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 6co$"A \+, - 56,?', IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 514 OF 2024 Between: Smt Ayesha Siddiqua. Wo Abdul Razzak Aged 51 years, occ. Agriculture R/o Nlajeedpally Village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district. ...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND 1 Gamilipuram yadaiah, S/o Ramaiah Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district Gamilipuram Mani, S/o Sailoo Aged 31 years. Occ. Agriculture R/o. Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district. Gamilipuram Yadagiri, S/o Yellaiah Aged 51 years Occ. Agriculture R/o. Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet district. Kunta Swamy, S/o Yadhaiah, aged 5'1 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Majedpally village, Wargal Mandal Siddipet diskict 2 3 4 5 The Tahsildar, Wargal Mandal, Siddipet district. ...RESPONDEN'TS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS Appeal under section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree made in A.S.No. 27 o'f 2023 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet preferred against the Judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 386 of 2022 daled 7 -6-2023 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Gajwel. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of G. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and none appeared for Respondents either in person or by Advocate. I This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I

1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHA RAO AR DEPUTY REGI //TRUE COPY' To, VII

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judqe at Siddipet 2. The lAddiiional Junior Civil Judge at Gijwel. 3. Two CD Copies Yz- SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED: 06rc112025 DECREE SA.No.514 of 2024 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,ottd k"