The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Execution. implementation, operation of the Judgment and Oecree =t daled 2O-9-2O24 passed in A.S.No.8 oI 2O2O on the file o V Additional District .Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad Distnct by confirming the.l tdgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.2 ol 2015 on the file of Senior Ciu I Judge at Bodhan, Niazamabad District Dated. 28-01 -2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Col r may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the deposrtions of PW'1 to PW4 irr d to receive them for proper adjud ication of appea l. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corr may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file and receive the Bank particula' in respect of Aasra Pension recerved by Late SK Baneeye Bee with effect f om 2910412016, the orders passed on 311/2024 in CRLP in FIR/399/20'1 5, on the complaint lodged by Late SK Baneeya Bee, hence these documents are necesszrrT and crucial. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. Amrutha Sanjeeva Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S. Viplav Simha Reddy The Court delivered the following: i'! HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHE'TTY SECOND APPEA L No.5 38 ot 2024 JUDGMENT: The Seconcl Appeal is fi leci question ing the J udgrncnt and decr.ce, dated 20 09 2024, passed by rhe V Additional Districr Judge at Bodhan, Nizamabad, in A.S.No.8 ol 2020, whereby and whereunder rhe judgmenr a,d dccree, dated 28.01.2020, passecr by trre Senior Civir Jucrge, Bocr[-ran, in O.S,No.2 o12015 rvas confir.med. 2 The appellant Nos. l ar-Ld 2 are the legal representatives of the sore deceased, rvho is defendant in the suit ancl trre responcrent is the praintifF in the suit. For convenibnce, hereinafter the parties are relerred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief factl of the case, which recl to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the illaintilf filed a suit fbr eviction against the def'endant in respect of suit schedule property i.e., H.No.l_l_35g at Azarn Gur5, Bodhan. It is averred in the pl[int that the plaintitf ancl rhe defendart arc relatives ancl the defendant was the owner of the suit scheclule property and the clerendanr placed the suit scheiule property for sale, arter negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same lor Rs.10,96,000/- and on payment of entire -/' I I I 2 LN,I, J 5,1.\.. l8 of2024 .\ r.l considefaLion. the def-endant e)lccuted sale deed vidc c ocument No.l233/i4, rlared 01.0.1.2{rlJ. Iu lact. tlre posscssiolt was deliver'(' to the plaintiff earlier to Lhe date of sale deed. Since, the defendant is the rr lative of the plaintiff. Shc allow,eil thc plaintil'l- to Iive in tt'Le siril schedL I r p[opefty. Holvever, ri.'hcrr the defcndant did not vacate 1he suit schedult lrope[ty, the plaintilf lllccl O S.No.2 oi' 20t5 through G.P.A. I.rolder : 3ainst the del'endartL recluesting thc (lourt to pass decree directing the dettr lant to vacate the suit schcd ule propel tv. -+. [)cicnciant lrled Lhc \\'ritterr Statetnettt dctl" 'rg all tlie lacts zrnd avcrnrents of Lhe plairrt ancl fut'ther cotrtended that th,r ;uit scheduLe property sitc [relongs to Municipal Council. Bodhan, her ou'tt' rship is not perfbcted anrl shr: has not Paid cost of thc land to N4trnrcipal Cor ncil, Ilodhan In terms oi G.O.Ms.No. 194. therelore. sltc cannot trans{'er ,r y right over the suit schedule propetLy. It is lurther contended that the pll r.rtiff by playing lraud lras obtained registered sale deed and thus, prayed to i smiss the suit. 5 On the basrs of the above pleadings of both th : pafties, the trial Court fl'amed thc lbllou,ing issues and additional issues for I ial:- i.) Ll/he-thcr the sale deed, dated 26.02.201 / is true, valid and binding ort the defendant? I I _) LN,4, J SA.No.5 i3 of2A24 ii) tthether the plaintil/ permitted the de.fbndunt to .\tq, in the suit schedule house after execution o.f sale deecl, clrtterl 26.02.20 I4 by the cleJbndant? iii) Whether the plaintif is entitLed ;fbr recot,eq: of' ltossession of .suit schedttle hottse? iv) To what relieJ? Additionol Issue s i) ii) Wrhether the sLLit is bad /br non,jr.tinrler of nec.ess.ctry, part'i e.\ 2 Whether the suit is bad.for not seeking the ratief ol decLaration of title?

6. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the G.P.A. Holder and thc wife of the plaintiff was examinbd as Pwl, the attestors olthe registered mortgage deed were examined as PW2 and PW4 and the plaintiff rvas exarnrned as pWj and EXs.A t to 45 \\'ere marked. on behalf of the defcncrar.rt. she hcrscl' exarnined as DWI and two witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 7 After full-fledged trial and upon considering the orar ancr documentary evidence and the contentions ol both the parties, the trial Courl decreed the suit with costs directing the defbndant to vacate rhe suit schcclule propefty ( I i : I B. 'l'he triirl Courl categorically observed as herei r der:- 4 LAA,./ Stl.513oJ')024 i\ (i) lh,'. dof t:rtdan.t lterscl.f u,utt lo the ,Su t Oi/icc, Boihun., o,tt'cuLcd. D.r.A I ctud lnr phologi't Regi s lra r oh trlottg t tth tltLtrnl' nrark obtained Lutdcr Sccliott 32 A oI ht .I,t.tt. I.,t,,t,I ,, tJt< t,ttc \i(.1( ol .ltrsf 1t{t!e t,f l:..t ) nol pos.sib!,'. to lrc!iet'e lhttl lltet e v)os tlo occo.t,(. dtlcndaril.ro to Srrb-1?r:gr.slt ur Ollicc ott accounl ttl Rcst of tlrc poirt.ts elicited in. the cross-examincttiott 't :is tralntr , so. il is t ./br the tarctl.vsis. 'PWl are of not r alct urrl lo tlrc pre.settl sLril and llnse catt be s afely, igircretl. (ii) lrttt.lh<'r, itt lhc cros,s-exatllutalt.ot1, -\'rr clettrl.l, ctdni/lcd lltal sin.ce one year si-r ntonlhs, she i. recei'ing 1tt'rtsiotr.li otn tlte BrLnl;.so tt is tlol tt-trc lh /sltc vti,laken lo Srh llt'gisrrur Of/ica lor th.c ptupose ql'pension. [i he cross- r*nninrrtit'rt, .;h.e litrlher admitted thal shc /iled O l.No.7 o.f 2(tl(t ltict' c tltc 1/ll .,lcklitiouttl Dislri.ct ./udg,c, tI dhan fbr crutce/!arion ctl Ex.,l I. 'll;,'tt:lbra, in /h( c\'('ttt ol dcfbr anl .\.t:ccctls t)t (jir) O S.No.7 o[ 2016, then nnl): .she wilL be entitLel to retai 7.ro.s.sr,.s.r'lol ot'cr lhc suil sc:ltetltrle proPert,- lntl as t't the dale, rts she olrcod.v es:ecttlcd registcr?-d salc deed h.fttt: tur of the ptaintiff i.c , Ex.A I she is hound to deli'er vacant ]ossession of lhe .suit scheclule propert-v lo the plaLntiff. (ir) lhe plaint ond written statement relating tc O'S.No.7 ol'2016 ore filed by the plaintiff and those are tmrked as Ex.l4 and Ex.A5. In tlre plcdnt avermetlts in O.S.No.7 of 2016' , I ti* 5 LN.t..t SA.No 538 ol 2 021 the defendant further developed lLer version ancl stc ed thal -the took Rs.7,00,A00/- fi.om the pLainri/f und on instrLLctions of' tlte plainrtll, she executed tlrc sale deecl and other clo(:Ltrnents. [41hot vus Jtleatled by the clefincltutt in O.S.No.7 ol 20l6 is tutt covered in the at;ertnenrs uf thc wrilten stot?ment or in the ch ieJ-e.raminotio:n aJlictnvit ./iled in this sttit ctnd it .rhut,s tltal her versiott is t1o'l tnrc.

9. By obsewing as hereinabove, the trial Court opiued that there is proper and sufficienf evidence in support of the ptaintiff s contentions and that there is no relizible or acceptable evidence on behalf of the defendant either to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff or to prove the contentions of the def-endant

10. On appeal, tlre lhrst Appeltate Court, being the finat fact_finding court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed tlie Appeal with costs, vide judgment and decree, dated

20.0g.2024 11 The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:_ (, The Reg)gtration Act clearly providecl sa,fe guards to avoid any fraud.: There is no denial by the defentlarLt as to putting her signature on sale deed/Ex.Al before the Sub Resistrar in sub Registration Office and her presence is evident ftom the digital photograph and thumb impression I I I 6 LNA J SA.) a \33 ol 2024 aLong wi.th the btLyer/p Lairt tiff and attestors/PW'2 on I Pl4rl in the salc dcctl, os pet' lhc Section 32 and 32kl oJ'th( . ct. (ir) '|'he te is a t:ktborate ptoc:edure wlrcn ,she t ':nied the exccution of tlrc docuntcrttt'.sale dce,7. Sincc, tlte dc]t ot d(,nI tlt( ektcution of tlu: sale dt:ed/Er,.,4 I rdant did rhe Sub- Regi.slrcu , Dt oceeded lbr regi.stratiort ot otlrcru'is( /bllov tltc lttocedttn' pr<:sct tbtd itt Scctton l Registrariott Act i c,derlvins to rcgister tlrc doc.Lr deed, 1tas.s an order with. a retsons '[here/bre, 'i abc.tve retsons, it i.\ lbulul rlnt the defendant .' crt)ctltcd tlta regtstt:rad sult, dt't,d/Ex.Al in fatt't plaintilI and .the is unable to ptor,e the fi.aud conun,t rc hds lo nentlraLe r al/ the 'lttntarillt r oi' Lhe :d bv tlrc plctintilf m settitlg the sale dced/Ex.Al. (iii) lttlact, the O.S.No.7 o.f 2016 ort the.file ct/ r earlier 111 ltlditiotnl District .Iudge's Court, I't tvhic:h tlte ile/enclant us a plailtiff .sou,qhl.frsr <:ctn< e ris Court dhart, in lation of t.he regi.stercd salc deed in fatour of tlrc plctirzli/f,t, ,qi/i tlccd.; irt llLe rtttntc of lrct ltrLttlrcr'Gul lvlohantttir: so.nrc vo.t dismr.ssed *,itlt a [itding that lhc plainlilt art./iom I and tlLe .\ undble lo discltat gt: lLcr lntrden in c.rlobl.ish.in.g her case'.

12. l{card Mr Aurrutha San.jcerra, leaured (]( unsel for the appellants and Sti Viplav Simha Reddy, Iearncd ,ounsel lor the rcspondent. Pcrused the entire rratcrial available ol1 r I .ord I I

1.,\A,/ 5A.No.53ti ol2a)l

13. Leamed counsel for the appellants contended that the jLrdgments and decrces of both the Coufts are eroneous, patently illegal, perverse in its findings. Fre further contendecr that rhe plarntitr by taking advantagel ol deflendant's loneliness. by playing fr.aud and breach of trust, brouglit the alleged salc deed into existence and thar plaintilf neither proved nor slrbstantiated his craim and the said aspect was not properly construecl by the trial Court as well as the lLrst Appellate Cou( and thercfore, prayed to allou, the Seconcl Appeal.

14. Per contra, Iear.necl counsel {br rhe plaintiff contended that thc trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly decreecl the suit with costs in tavour ot the ptaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properfy ancl the first Appellate Court, on ic-appreciation ol the evidence, has dtsmissed the appeal suit.

15. A perusal of rdcorcl wourd discrose that the trial court as we[ as the hrst Appellate Court have made categorical observations that defendant herself went to the Sub-Registr.ar Office, Bodhan, ancl her photograph atong with thumb mark obtained are found on the rear -1 srde ot ltrst page would clearly indicate that the delendant voluntarily I I 8 LNA, J SA.io i36 of 2024 exequted Ex.A. 1, Sale deed. ln view of the evidence ol PWs.l to 4, who are attestors of the sale deed, the defendant fail: I to prove tiaud and nrisrepresentation on the parl of the plaintilf n execution of Ex.A. l.l herefbre, this Courl does not find anv leasori .o interfere with Lhc findings of tJre appellate Court

16. Learned counsel 1or the appellants failed to rai; an1' substantial question of lau Lo be decicled by this Court in this Se :ond Appeal. ln 1act, all thc groLrncls laiscd rn this appeal are lactual r nature and do not qualily as the substantial quesrions of la,'v in terrr of Section I00 C].P.C l1 . It is rvell settled plinciple by a catena <l1' t ecisions of tlre I'lon'ble Ape x Courl that in the Second Appeal fil: I under Section 100 C.P.C., this Coud canllot intcrlere rvrtli the r rdings on facts arrived at b}, tho first Appcllate Court, rvhich are lased oll proper appreciation of the oral and clocumetttary evidence olr 'ecord

18. Ijurther, in Gurtlet,Kuur v. Kakit, the Apex (( urt held that the lJigh Clour: sitting in Scconct Appeal cattnot cxatr itc tire evidetrce L (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 I i I l I i I I once again as a third tdal Court and the power undel. Section 100 9

5.4 No 516 o/ 1024 t, C.P.C. is very lirnited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question ol lar.v is raised ancl lalls lor consideration 19- Havi.g cclnsiclerecl the e,tire nratc'i.r availabie .. r.ec.rcr arci the lindings recorded by the trial Coum as well as flrsr Appellare Court, this Cour( Ilnds no grouncl or rcasou warranting interl-er.ence with the said findings, r"rnder Scction 100 C.pC Moreover, rhe grounds raised by the appeLlants are lactual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question ol larv ariscs. lor consideration in this Second Appeat.

20. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage ol admission. No costs 21 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SDA K. AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional District Judge at Bodhan, Niza m ad District (with l

2. J- 4. 5. DL/gh records, if any) The Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, Niazamabad One CC to Sri. Amrutha Sanjeeva, Advocate [OPUC] 9n" 99 to Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 JUDGMENT SA.No.538 of 2024 ''- j - i.-- sl^-l-\. '.'r. t-. l,r) 0 5 BEs 2U' "i I ',_.,1....-. SECOND APPEAL DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION tl ?r{-