The High Court · 2025

TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA,,\]I,ISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.6 of 2025 JT]DGMENl': This Second Appeal is filed challenging thc .iudgment and decree, dated 26.09.2024, passed by the Principal I)istrict Judge, Jagtial, in A.S.No.l7 of 2023 whereunder and whercbl' the judgment and decree, dated 13.03.2023, passed by the Princinal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No.l76 of 2016 was confinned

2. 1'he appellant herein is plaintiff and respo rdent hercin IS defendant, before the trial Court. For convenience, rereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The briel'facts of the case as nanated in the rlaint are that plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.176 of 2016, seeking clt.clararion of title and pcrpctual inlunction in respect of land to an exrcrlL 133.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.342 and 343, situated at Dharoor village of Jagtial Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule property'); that u,i ie of plaintiff narnely, Vemula @ Ir{arnidala Susheela, (hereinafter referred .o as 'rl1e deceased') is the owner and possessor of schedule property havingl purchased the same \ t 2 LNA. J SA.No.6 of2025 under registered sale deed document No.1589 o12004; that due to ill health, the deceased died on 19.06.2016, leaving behind the plaintiff as her only legal heir; that defendant who is the mother of the deceased denied title ol the plaintiff over the schedule property and interfered with his possession on

05.07 .2016. Plaintiff resisted the ittegal acts of defendants, however, defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff frequently. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint, that defendant is the owner and possessor of the schedule property having acquired the same from her deceased daughter through registered will deed, dated 17.06.2016 and that in the year 2004 the deceased purchased schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.1589/2004, dated 03.09.2004 and her name was also mutated in the revenue records urde proceedings No.B/2476l2008, dated 05.12.2009 and after death of the deceased, the defendant is in peaceful possession and continuous enjoyment of the schedule property.

5. Defendant further averred that originally ptaintiff is native of Laxrnidevipalli village of Sarangapur mandal and used to work as auto driver and was residing at Krishnanagar, Jagtial; that maniage of the I 3 1N,4, J 5.4.No.6 of2025 deceascd was perforrned with one Ankam Satyanaray rna, about 20 years back, Itowever, due to some differences they obtained div,rrce, thereafler, the deceascd did not rnarry any person and was living alone. [t is lirrther averrcd that the deccascd during her life time worked as A NIM (Outsource) Primary Ilcalth Ccntre at Kathalapur village, where plaintiff devcloped close intirnacy and friendship with the deceased and altr:r the dealh of the deceased, plaintill with mala./ide intention to grab tlrc schedule propefty allcgcd that the deceased was his wife, but in fact therc is no rnarital relationship bctq'een plaintiff and the deceased; that rlaintiff married one Sujatha and they were blessed with two daughters. It i; further averred that the deceased during her life time, bequeathed her prol,crty in favour of the defendant by executing a will deed dared 17.06.201(i, out of love and affection as the defendant rendered her services till hcr death. and that after death o[ the deceased, defendant got right and title over the schedule property and lhat deceased got no legal heirs except defendant, therefore, question of succession of schedule property by pla ntiff does not arise. I'Ience, prayed to dismiss the suit

6. On the basis ofthe above pleadings of both the rarties, thc trial Court framed the lollowing issues for trial:- \ t )i ..:t 4 LNA, J SA.No.6 of2025 "(l) Wether the plaintiff is absolute owner and title holder in respect of suit Schedule property? (2) Whether defendanl has became absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of will deed, dt.17.06.2016 allegedly executed by l/emula Susheela as claimed by defendalnt? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration title in respect of suit schedule property? (4) Wether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual i nj un ction a ga i nst defe ndant? (5)) To what reliel? "

7. During the course of the Trial, plaintiff got examined as PW'l and PW2 and Exs.Al to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW.1 to DW.3 were examined and Ex.Bl and Ex.B2 were marked.

8. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions ofboth the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide jtdgment and decree dated13.O3.2023.

9. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- " I 3. From the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and answers elicited in the cross examination of PW.I, it can be held that the marriage of plaintilf with Susheela itself is void marriage 5 LNA, J .9A.No.6 of 2025 as such plaintiff claining the right over suit schedtt,e property on the capocitt' tltat he is husband of deceased Su,\l e,zla is not mainta nble Jbr the reason that morriage betwa t; them is voitl as pet Sec'. I I of llindu Maruiage Act, I 955. Irt wew of the above reason plaintiff cannot claim owneishilt over suit schedult properO' by way of succession as their t,tcnt.iage is void as,,ter owner of suit schedule property.

16. In view of the discussion made in issueNo.I and 2, the plaintfl' herein miserablv failed to prove marit relution betweer: ltint and daughter of Defendant b), nau,, Susheelo. Plainti.l,t in this case i.s clainting ou'nership n,, wu.v of successiotl undcr section 16 of Hindu Succession tlct, 1956, claimin.q to be legal heir deceased Susheela and thz plaintiff herein failed to prove existence of marrioge bety,t'ttrt him and Susheela as such plaintiff is not entitled to declart,tion ol'title and further plaintilf also failed to establish his pos.'c.;sion over the suir schedule property as such plainti./J is nor antitled to r e I ief of p e r pe tual inj u nc t ion. "

10. Aggricved by the judgment dated 13.03.2013, the plainriff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.l7 of 2023 and the first Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, re-appreciated tlir r:ntire evidence and material available on record and dismissed thc ,A.ppeal, vide its judgment datecl 26.09.2024, thereby, confirming the .jr.rdgrnent of the trial Court. \ i -\- 6 LNA, J S1.No.6 of2025 I l. The first Appeltate Court in its judgment observed as hereunder:- " .....Contention of the plaintif is that though he filed photographs relating to his alleged marriage but trial Court did not show the same as exhibit in Appendix of evidence in the judgment. Thorough scrutiny of photographs made it clear that except positive photographs plaintiff failed to Jile the compact disc or negative coftesponding to the photographs. As per the rule of procedure plainttff has to ftle photographs along with compact disc or negatives. So, trial Court rightly rejected its admissibilfty. Heavy-burden lies on rhe plaintiff to prove that deceased Susheela obtained legal divorce from her first husband Satyanarayana Rao before her alleged marriage with the plaintiff. Legal divorce only dissolves the marriage of deceased Susheela wtth her first husband Satyanarayana Rao but not customary divorce. Caste elders are not empowered to dissolve marriage between spouses. No piece of evidence is placed on record with regard to dissolution of marriage of deceased with her first husband. Plaintff also failed to place any evidence with regard to his legal divorce with his first wife. Admittedly, deceased Susheela and plaintilf were having ltving spouses at the time of their alleged second marriage. No evidence is adduced in respect of legal dissolution of their Jirst marriages. So, the alleged marriage of deceased Susheela with the plaintiff is a void I 7 LNA, J SA.ltto.6 of 2025 nnrrioge in the e1'e of law and plaintiff cannot be con 'i'lered as legaLty wedded husband of deceased Susheela and solt survit.ittg legal heir ol' deceased Susheela. So, plainti/f caruk)t ocquire right over tlre propertt, of deceased Susheela autonot'call.v on lrr dcatlt.

12. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukeed, learned counsel loL lhe appellant Perused the entire material available on record.

13. Learned counsel lor the appellant contended tha lhe trial Court as well as first appellate Court without properly applecratillg the oral and documentary evidence placed on record i.e., Il x. Al to ExA9, erroneously rlismissed the suit. Leamed counsel lbr the appellant furlher contended that though both the Courts disbclieved will deed dated 17.06.2016, purported to have been executed b1' tire deceascd in favour of her mother/dcfendant, but dismissed the su t by nrisreading and misinterpreting the documentary evidence plr ced on record' Leamed counsel for the appellant further contendc d that both the Courts failerl to consider and appreciate the oral a L-L'J documentary evidence placed on behatf of the ptaintiff and have t:otne to perverse findings that plaintiff lailed to substantiate his case. l'herelirre, prayed to alldw the apPeal. l 8 LNA, J SA.No.6 of 2025

14. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court concurrently held that since the plaintiff failed to prove marital relationship between plaintiff and the deceased, he cannot claim ownership over the schedule property by way of succession. Both the Courts have also held that alleged marriage between the deceased and plaintiff is void marriage in the eye of law and therefore, plaintiff cannot be considered as legally wedded husband of the deceased and he cannot claim ownership over the schedule property. The First Appeltate Court specifically observed that though plaintilf filed photographs relating to the alleged marriage, however, CDs and negatives of the same was not placed on record, therefore, the same cannot be considered and further observed that the plaintiff lailed to place on record acceptable and admissible evidence in proof of marriage between ptaintiff and the deceased.

15. In considered view of this Court, the leamed counsel for 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 I 9 LNA, J S,t.No 6 of 2025 this appeal are faotual in nature and do not qualiff as ]rc strbstantial questions of law in terms ol Section 100 C.P.C

16. It is wcll settled principle by a catena of dccisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal fited rLndcr Scclion 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the fi ndings on facts arrivcd at by the first Appellate Court, which are brrsed on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence ott t :<:ord.

17. Further. it Gurdev Kaur v, Kukit, the Apex Corrrt held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examitLc the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power utttlcr Scction 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be cxercised only rvh:re a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration'

18. Having considered the entire rnaterial availablc on record and the findings recorded by the first Appetlate Court, tliis Cotrrt hnds no ground or reason warranting intet ference with the sai,l findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are t(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 / t0 LNA, J SA.No.6 o1202 5 factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.

19. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGI ECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Court of the principal District Judge, Jagtial. ' 2. The Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial. 3. One CC to SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh \ \ i I HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.6 ot 2O25 r ', \'t', , !- i. , I' 7 EtI 70ffi t , .';' DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL A1'THE STAGE OF ADMISSION b 1 q cr.