The High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit fited in supp"ort or tn. p"iition iire High court may be pleased to qrant stay o,f all further p'ot"uO ngt and execution of the Judgment and Decree ir,"ololoz 2025 rn A s N;-'g ; 2019' confirming the Judgment and Decree dated11032O19inOS'r'lo-gZotZOIA'pendi-ngdisposaloftheSecond Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI' MARAM ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i t I?{ 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA SECOND APPEAL No.530 of 2025 .IIJDGMENT: Heald Sri M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel tbr the appellant on adn-rission. Perused the entire record.

2. The Second Appeal is prelbrred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 in A.S.No.9 of 2019 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judgc, Nizamabad, ('First Appellate Court'), wherein the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated

11.03.2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civit Judge, Nizarnabad. ('Trial Courr').

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 20 I4 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages and consequent relief of perpetual injunction, after delivery of possession against the appellant herein. In said suit, the respondent exanrined himsell' and another witness as P.Ws. I and 2 and got marked E,xs.A- I to A-24. '[he appellant got examined D.Ws. I to 4 and got marked Exs.B-l to B-20. '[he leamed Trial Court examined Exs.A-l to A-20 and Exs.B-l to B-17 and arrived at conclusion that the respondent is the original owner of the suit schedule propertv i.e., agricultural lands in Sy.No.36169 admeasuring thlee acles and Sy.No.36l(Wet) (Paiki) IIY,J sA 530 2025 - admeasuring two acl'cs eight guntas total five acres eight guntas situated at Fathenagar Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is held by the Trial Court that as per I:r.,4- l final allotment issued by F'athenagar Co- operativc [.and c]olonization Society lbr Ex-servicemen, the suit schedule propefty is allottccl to thc respondent fbr lris scn,ices as I]x-servicemen on 2g.0 I.1988. l'he narne of the respondent is shorvn to be pattedar of suit schedule propert) in t:x.A-2 to A- t I pahanies and Ex.A-12 of the Encumbrance Certificatc. r'i'hcreas, the name of the appellant herein is shown as possessor irr thc pahanies. It is rhe specific case of the respondent that he has leased out thc suit scl-redulc propert) and therefore, the appellant came into possession ol thc propcrtv and therelbre, with nalafide intention filed suit fbr perpetual in.iunction and obtaincd decree in his favour to protect himsell' from disposscssiorr. 'lheretbre. suit for declaratiorl of title and recovery ol'possessior.r is sought. Since suit lor declaration of title has been decrecd rleclaring titlc. the appcllant is directed to vacate the suit schedulc propefty rvithin two tllonths liorn the date ofjudgment and decree of the l rial Coun.

4. Aggrievcd by the j trdgmerlt arld decree of the Trial Court, the appellant pref-errcd Iirst appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2019 before the First Appellate Clourr. In the said lirst appeal, the documents of the appellant and the respondcnt were cxamined and held that the respondent was 2 I \ - allotted total Ac.8-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.36/69 and 36lPaiki by Sainik RY,J sA 530 2025 Welfare Board Arn.red Head Quarters Society, Fathemagar, as he was an ex-servlcernan. l'he said land was allotted in the year 1988. The appellant herein was inducted on the basis of the lease with respect to land to an extent of Ac.3-00 subject to payment of Rs.l ,00,000/- for a period of three years, but the appellant did not pay the said amount. The appellant also obtained signatures of the respondent and his family members on stamp papcrs stating that it was fbr his safety. After completion of three years lease period, when the respondent approached the appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the land, the appellant demanded Rs.15,00,000/-. The documents adduced by the appellant show that he is possessor and the respondent is pattedar. After cxamining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that there is no evidence to support the contentions of the appellant that he purchased the suit schedule property frorn the respondent in the year 2004. It is categorically held that there is no document in favour of the appellant to show his title over the suit schedule property.

5. Aggrieved by the disrnissal of the first appeal, the present Second Appeal is pret-erred raising the following substantial questions of law: l. Whether the Courts bclow erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is the absolute ou nor of the suit schedule property solely on the basis 3 RY,J sA 5i0 2025 of pahanics and a sticietv allottnent lctter. $'ithout any rcgistercd instrumenl conlerring titlc as requircd ttntler the 'fransler of Property Ac1 and Rcgistration Act'l

2. Whethcr the Courts hclori lrrilctl to considcr thc binding cvidentiarl' value o{'F.xs. I} I to L}l (Agrecrncnt ol'Sale and Rccoipts) dtrll signcd br thc plaintil-l'and his tarnilv t.ttctttbcrs. ackrroulcdging reccipt of thc entire salc considcratiolt and dclivcrr <llposscssion. thereby rendoring thcir findings r itiatod'.) J. Whcthcr thc ('ourts hclon' crrecl in discarding Exs. Bl to 820. inoluding land revcnuc rccoipts. crop loan rccords. and elcctricity bills in the appcllant's ttatne. shich conclusircll cstablish continuous possession and orvncrship of thc clefertdant?

4. Whether the Coufis hclos conrtnitted a lcgal error in holding that thc suit is rvithin lirnitation. though thc allcgcd lcase period cxpired in 2007 and thc suit was Iiled onlf in 20l.l. hcl ond the period prescribed under Article 65 ol'thc [-irnitation Act. t96i']

5. Whether the li nding that thc dc l'cndant obtaincd the plaintifl's signatures lbr "salctl" *ithotrt prtrol'of lraud or cocrcitln is perversc and contrarr to Scctions 9l and 92 ol- thc Inclian []videncc Act, *'hich bar oral evidence against rvrittcn docunrcttts'.)

6. Whcthcr thc Courls hclou failed to rtpprcciatc that the plaintiffi claim is hit b1' the doctrinc ol approbate aud reprobatc. having earlier adrnittcd excculion ol'docutncnts and rcccipt ol salc considcration?

7. Whether thr: Courts bclorv thilcd kr give clue ucight to the earlier deorec in O.S. No. l2.l ol'20 l0 in Iirvour ol'the appcllant. ctlnfirming his possession tlvcr lhc sarne propert]. rrhich opcratcs as res judicata or. at the lcast. constitutes str()nq. corroboratir e eviclencc'.)

8. Whether thc Courls hclos ruistlirccted tltctrtsch es in ignoring that thc alleged socictl' allotmcnt letter tlocs ttrtt vcst hcritable or transl'crable orvnershil.r rights. and hcncc. tlrc plaintilf had no titlc to claim deolaration or tcco\ crY ttl' possess ion'.'

9. Whether thc Courts beloiv crrcd in decrceing the suit for declaration of titlc and recovery ol'posscssiorr u'ithotrt fiaming the issue rvhether the agreement o1' sule exccutcd b1' the appcllant/dc f'endant rvas obtained as a sccuritl' fbr a loan. and rvithout thc plaintilf discharging his burden of prool'to that cffcct'?

10. Whether the Courts helou' ignored tttaterial cvidencc or actcd on no evidencc. and thelebl- rendercd {indings contrary to settled legal principles under Sccti()n 100 ('PC'l 4 -l RY,J sn 530 2025 I I . Whether a suit lor declaration ol title and recovery of possession is maintainablc in the absence of any declaration that the appellant obtaincd the agrcemcnt ol salc as a securitl, lor a [oan?

12. Whether the respondcnt/plaintifl. being the alleged owner, could havo filed a suit for dcclaration and recovery of possession instead of a suit fbr eviction'l 13. Whether a decrec fbr declaration ol title and recovery of possession can be granted rvhcn the respondenUplaintiff admits having received a hugc arnount exceeding the rnarket value of the suit schedule prope(y? t4. Whether such admittcd receipt of a large amount can legally be treated as a loan, in the absencc ofany proofto that effect?

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowda'held that High Court can entertain a regular second appeal purely on a 'substantial' question of law not even a question of law or a question of fact. Further, as per thc judgment of this Court in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmir, the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakil hetd that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal carLnot examine the evidence once again as a third tlial Court and the power under Section 100 CPC is very limitcd and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and f-e ll tbr consideration.

7. The substantial question of larv No. I is about the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding that respondent is absolute owner on the 2 t (zozs) s scc aaz 2024 SCC OnLine TS 185 ' 1zooz1 t scc s+s 5 RY.J sn 530 2025 basis of pahanies and the allotment letter of the society without registered instrunrent. 1'his question is lrivolous and malaJide as the respondent was ex- ser'",ice rnen and afier his retirement in recognition o1- his services Sainik Welfare Board has allottcd him the suit schedule property. -l'he allotment letter carries with it prool of title and there is no nced for a registered document as to conl'er title when Sainik Wellare Board has allotted the suit schedule property. The said institution is not expected to register a sale deed. gift deed or allotmcnt deed in ihvour ol' Ex-servicemen while allotting land. As per their procedure, an allotment letter is issued and the same is equivalent to a titlc dced

8. The substantial question ol lau, No.2 about evidentiary value of Exs.B-l to B-3 (agreernent of salc and receipts) has becn considered by both 'l-rial and First Appellate Courls and was discarded. The factual tindings ol both the Courls canrrot be looked into bl this Court as a third trial Court

9. Simitarly, substantial question of lau, No.3 about evidentiary value ol'Exs.B- I to B-20 u'hich include land revenue receipts, crop loan records and electricity bills which conclusively establish continuous ownership and possession of the appellanl, is nctlct .fide and misguiding ro the extent that .laill rerenue receipts. crop loan records and electricity bills could only 6 -r RY,J sA 530 2025 demonstrate possession, but not title. There is absolutely no document in proof of title of the appellant except lor unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.12.2004. As per Suraj Lamp and Industries private Limitcd v. State of Haryanaa, Hon'ble Suprerne Court of India has held that no title can be transferred through unregistered agreement of sale. Therefore, the appellant herein cannot clairn title. Further, possession of the appellant was never under the question, the same is admitted by respondent and therefore, when the suit tbr declaration of title was filcd recovery of possession is also sought as consequential relieL -fhus, substantial question of law No.3 is misguiding to the extent that E,x.B-l to B-20 prove the ownership of the appellant, but not title.

10. The substantial question of law No.4 is about limitation to the effect that the lease period expired in the -y-ear 2001 and suit was frled 2Ol4 beyond Articte 65 of the Lirnitation Act, 1963. This question does not stand to scrutiny as lirnitation period lbr a rclief of declaration of title is t2 years. When the lease expired in thc year 2007 and the suit is filed in the year 2014, the suit is well within lirnitation by almost five years and therefore, does not suffer with infirmity. ,/./ 'ltn 2otz supRtME couRT 206 7 \-!! RY.J sA 530 2025 I l. with rcspect to substantial question of law Nos.5 and 6, the same are about allegations o1- fraud and coercion and findings thereol by the Trial (lourt and the Fi'st Appcllate court. Such issues have been considered by both the Cour-ts and this court under Section 100 of tlro c.p.c. cannot pive an altentative vierv even if the same is possible. 12' with regard to s,bstantial question of raw No.7 i.e., about dccree in o S'No l24 o'2010 and whether the sarne operates as re.s .jutricuta. the appellant has not understood about the concept of resjutricattr. 'fhe suit in o.S.No.124 of 20r0 is filed by the apperlanr seeking perperuar injunction. The sanrc cannot operate as res .iudicata lor suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession when filed by the respondent. Only when the earlier suit is filed tbr declaration of title and recovery ofpossession, there can be any scope for application of conccpt of r.es .jutlicttrtL. In the instant case, relicfs sought and issues dealt with are diffcrcnt and ther.crbre, there is no scope for application of concept of res/uclicctta and there is no tailurc in giving we ightagc to rhe decree in O.S.No. I 24 of 20 10. I3 The substantial questions of Iaw Nos.g arrd 9 with respect to rival tdles of the respondenr and the appcllant l.rave aiready been considered by both the courts and there is no new issue much rcss substantial question of lau,to be considered by rhis Cour-t. 8 RY.J sA 530 2025 14. The substantial questions of law Nos. I 0 to 14 are frivolous and unwarranted such that they cannot be taken up as substantial questions of law in a second appeal. Said questions are aimed at creating confusion without any substance, therefbre cannot be considered.

15. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no substantial questions ol' [aw, which are to be considered in this second appeal. [n fact, the questions raised in the grounds of appeal of the present secorid appeal are blatant falsehoods aimed at misguiding the Court. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the second appeal and the sarne is liable to be dismissed.

16. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees of the both the Trial and First Appetlate Courls in O.S.No.92 of 2014 dated 11.03.2019 and A.S.No.9 ol 2019 dated

30.07.2025 respectively. There shatt be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, il'any, pending shalI stand closed. SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAM DEPUTY REG //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. [with records, if any] 2. The Senior Civiol Judge, Nizamabad. 3. One CC to SRl. MARAM ANIL KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ASR/?SL &" j* HIGH COURT DATED:18 t11t2OZs JUDGMENT SA.No.530 of 2025 o U t * HE 5I4 1 1 B flAR 2026 2 I * 6f: :/' DTSMISSING THE APPEAL ,'7\ (5_ J,<s taf-fze IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ruVENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA SECOND APPEAL NO: 530 OF 2025 Between: Megavath Bansi Naik, S/o Late Megavath Narayana, Aged about 62 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Dariyapur Thanda, Navipet Village & Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. APPELLANT AND Syed Habeebuddin, S/o Late Syed Qutubuddin, Aged about 64 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Fatehnagar Vrllage, Navipet Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. RESPONDENT Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Honorable lV Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in A.S. No. 9 of 2019, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in O.S. No. 92 ol 2014. ORDER: This appeal is coming on [or hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, thc Judgment and Decree of the Lorver Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed confirming the judgments and decrees of the both rhe rrial and Firsl Appellate courrs in o.S.No.92 of 2014. dt- I 1.03.2019 and A.S.No.9 of 2019. dr.30.07 .2025 .

2. That thcre shall be no order as Io costs //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA UTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER l. lhc IV .\dditional District Judge. NizaN4ABAD 2. lhc Senior C'ivil Judge. N izamabad. 3. I rvo CD Oopics. {nq, ) r-- U I HIGH COURT DATED:18t1112025 DECREE SA.No.530 of 2025 c(-) ( * IHE SI4 cr 1 B tlq 2026 z t SOATC\ DISMISSING THE APPEAL ) -JK /r- L.l t6l-l)b