The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.3 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeat is fited questioning the jt dgment and decree, dated 14.10.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Suryapet, in A.S.No.ll of 2021, whereunder and 'vhereby the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2021, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, in O.S.No.185 of 2011 was confirmed.

2. The appellants are the delendants and the resp('ndent is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience. hereinafter thr, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to flrling c'f the present Second Appeal, are that in the plaint, the plaintiff averred that originally Solipuram Chandrakala was owner of the land admeasuring Ac.l-27 gts., in Sy.No.ll7fu, Shyamala Pushpalatha lras owner of the land admeasuring Acs.2-28 gts., in Sy.No.1l7lEE and Yarala Ranamma was owner of the land admeasuring Acs.Z.25 gts., in Sy.No. 117lE, totally admeasuring Acs.6.00 gts situated at Vardhamanukota, Arvapally Mandal; that all the above persons, who 2 L]\'A. J SA.No.3 of 2D5 'rl\ are sisters, have sold the total land admeasuring Acs.6.00 gts to the plaintiff under registered sale deed No.2003/1 1 dated 17 .03.201 I ; thar since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and occupation ofthe suit schedule property and cultivating the same; that in the meantime, the value of the land has increased. as such the defendants demanded the plaintiff to sell the land, but the plaintiff refused to sell the land and therefore, the defendants made efforts to occupy the suit schedule propefty; that in that process on 30.11.2011, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and tried to occupy the same by dispossessing him from the land. Hence the suit for perpetual injunction.

4. Defendant No.l fited his written statement and defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 . The defendants denied all the facts and averments of the plaint and further contended that defendant No.1, his father and sisters are having joint family properties of about Acs.36-29 acres in Sy.Nos.l31, 114, 111, ll7, 1200, l20l & 1202 at Vardhamanukota village of Arvapally Mandal; that due to differences between them, in the year of 1996, on advice of well-wishers and relatives, settlement deed was executed with regard to division of joint family properties and the same was J L]'A, J SA.No.3 o;[ 1025 signed by all the joint family members; that as per the sai(l settlement, defendant No. I got the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.l 1.00 acres in Sy.Nos.lll, 113 &. ll4, whereas his. sisters were given Acs.15.00 acres in Sy.Nos.l31 8L 1200 (Acs.5.00 gts ezich) and his father has taken Acs.1l.00 gts in Sy.No.lI4; that as per the said settlement, the defendant was allotted land to an extent c,f Acs.06.00 gts in Sy.Nos.l t7 of Vardhamanukota village and the same was nominally stood in the name of his sisters i.e. vendor of the plaintiff; that defendant No.1 and other family members have been r:njoying the said properties as per the settlement deed; that after set lement, the sisters of defendant No.1 sold away their land to Boora ( iuruvamma, Boora Veeramallu through registered sale deed No.2 189/96 and 2290196 and delivered the possession of the same.

4.2. It was further averred that after . the settlem,.:nt, on an application filbd by defendant No. l, the revenue authorities, transferred the land allotted to him in Sy.No.l l7 of VardLramanukota village in the name of his wife i.e. defendant No.2 and issrLed pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour; that defendant |,.os.1 and 2 have also obtained loan from Nalgonda District, Co-operar ive Central Bank, Thungathufthy Branch by depositing the original titl: deed; that ---'l 4 LNA, J SA.No.3 of2025 since the date of mutation, the wife of defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. Thus, the vendors of the plaintiff have lost their ownership, right and possession over the suit schedule property in the year 1996 itself.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:- " (l) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property on or before filing of the suit? (2) Ilhether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, workmen, servants, etc., from causing interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as prayedfor? (4) To what relieJ? "

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PWI and P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-77 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.l to 6 werd examined and Exs.B-l to 8-6 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and document4ry evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 73.07.2021.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:- 5 L''A, J SA.No.3 oI )425 "More than P.W-1, PIry-3 was examined elaborately ir cross- examination. Wile defendant contended that their famtly arrangement occurred in 1996, PW3 stated that it occt'rred in

1992., She clearly denied that a partition occurred itt 1996. She affirmed even during cross examination that apal rtom suit land in sy.no.ll7 some other lands fell to thei, share during such family arrangement. She clearly denied rhat the suit land fell to the share of Dl during family arrange,nent in t996 and that she gave her pattadar pass book to Dl at that time by removing her photo on it. "

8.1. The trial Court has furlher observed as hereunder:- "\|/hile defendants claimed A.6-25gts in sy.no. I l1 Dl4/4 stated that Dl had 6acres in sy.no.l 17. Contrary to e ridence of DWl, 2 & 6, what DIY3 stated is that during ptrtition between Dl and his family members no share was all tted lo sisters of D I . Surprisingly, DW4 also stated c'ifferent boundaries than in suit schedule. While in chief, he stct'ed that he tapped toddy from trees in suit land, durinl cross examination he stated that he cultivated the suit land or lease. As such entire evidence adduced on behalf of deJ,zndants was inco)nsistent, self-contradictory, ambiguous a td not inspiring confidence at all. It is settled principle th,t mere entries in revenue records do not amount to proof cf title. There is no reliable or proper document to prove possersion of defendants over suit land. On the other hand plair;tiff has d 6 LNA, J SA.No.3 of2025 Consistent and satisfactory evidence in support of his contentions. Plaintiff s counsel argued that. plaintiff adduced sfficient evidence to show his ownership and possession over suit schedule property in the form of oral evidence of PWs. I to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.Al to A17; that defendant's contentions themselves are incomplete and vague, that defendants failed to adduce any proper evidence as to their contentions, and that defendants created all false documents and evidence to claim false and grab the valuable property of plaintiff From the discussion above, this argument appears reasonable. "

9. By observing as hereinabove, the trial Court opined that there is proper and sufficient evidence in support of plaintiffs contentions and that there is no reliable or acceptable evidence on behalf of defendants either to disprove the contentions of plaintiff or to prove the contentions of defendants. When a person is in lawful possession of certain property, none can interfere with such possession in any manner without following the due process of law and accordingly, answered the issues in favour of plaintiff

10. On appeal, the first Appellate Court being the final fact- finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material 7 L, IA, J SA.No.3 oJ ?025 available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated

14.10.2024, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial tlourt. I I The first Appellate Court in its judgment <,bserved as hereunder:- "To prove the contention of the plaintffi the plaintirf was examined as PWI and he filed his chief ffidavit reiterattng the contents of the plaint. Apart from thts evidence, the p aintiff also examined Pl[/2 and PW3. PW2 has supported the case of the plaintiff saying that plaintiff has purchased th) suit schedule property from Chandrakala, Pushpalathc and Ranamma through registered sale deed Nos.2003/11 dated 17.03.2011, since then the plaintiff is in possessio,t and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. PW3 is one tf the vendor of the plaintiff also supported the case of the pl,tintiff, she deposed that she along with her elder sisters r,lamely Chandrakala and Puspalatha have jointly sold the suit Lmd to the plaintff through registered sale deed on t7.03.201t and they have also handed otter the possession.of the suit sctedule property to him, since then he is in occupation of the suit schedule property. These witnesses were cross examined by tlrc learned counsel for the defendant, but nothing was elicite,l. Apart from the oral evidence, the plaintiff also rehzd on Exs.Al io Ex.A17. Ex.Al to A5 are the pahanies for the years 1998-99, 2000-01, 2003-04, 2006-07, 2008-09, which ihows the name of Chandrakala, who is one of the vendors tf the 8 LNA, J SA No.3 of2025 plaintiff,, in patta column and possessor col mn dgainst the land admeasuring Ac. I .27 gts, in Sy.No. I l7/RU. After careful perusal of the evidence of Dltt l to DW6, il appears that sisters of the defendant no.l have gol the suit schedule properties in the family settlement, but the contention of the defendants that they have exchanged the suit schedule property with other land, as such the defendant's family is in possession and occupation of the land. To prove their version, the defendants have not filed the alleged exchange deed in lhis The defendant also relied on Exs.Bl to 86 in support of their contention Ex.B I is the title deed without photograph issued in favour of Ranamma, one of the vendors of the plaintifi which shows that she is having three acres of land in 9y.No.117. Apart from other land in Sy.No.l3l. Ex.B-2 is the pattadar passbook issued in the name of defendant No.2, which shows that she is having Ac.3.l0 gts. of land in I l7/EE, Ac.l.28 gts in Sy.No.ll7/U and Acs.1.27 gts in Sy.No. ll7/UU. Ex.B-3 is certified copy of pdssbook issued register dated 17.07.2017, which ' s-hows the name of Ranamma against the land admeasuring Acs.3.10 gs in Sy.Nn.l17. These documents are not at all helpful to the defendant.

9.1. The first Appellate Court further observed as hereunder:- "After careful perusal of the evidence of pLaintiff coupled with Exs.Al to Ex.A17, it is established by the plaintiff that he had purchased suit schedule property from the sisters of the 9 SA.No.3 tf2025 defendant no.l under registered sale deed Ex.A17. On tirc same day, the vendor of the plaintiff delivered the possessio;t of the suit schedule property and since then, he is in occupat'on and possession of the suit property.

10. Heard Sri Srinivas Pendota, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rama Kotaiah, learned counsel for the respondenl. Perused the entire material available on record. I l Learned counsel for the appellant contended thrt the family arrangement deed was filed along with written statement and the same was sent for validation to Sub-Registrar's Office, Nalgorrda and it was validated by way of paying the stamp duty, but, the lirst appellate Court erred in observing that the said document was 1ot produced before the trial Court; that both the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the suit schedule properfy is ancestral property and as per the family arran gement deed, land admeasuring Acs.6.00 gts in Sy.No. 1 l7 was allottec to defendant No. I though the said property stood in the name of his sisters as a joint family property and as such, the vendors of the pla,ntiff have no manner of rights to execute sale deed in favour of plairtiff since the said land was not allotted to his vendors; that the trial Cc,ur1 as well as IO LNA, J SA.No 3 of2025 the first Appellate Court have failed to follow the settted principle of law that family settlement deed which is unregistered can be considered as evidence to prove the allotm6nt of their respective shares to each member of the joint family and thus, erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and hence, he prayed to allow the Second Appeal.

12. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the suit and the first Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the evidence, has rightly confirmed the j udgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

13. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have made categorical observation that the plaintiff was able to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of documents marked on his behalf, i.e., Exs.A- 1 to A-17 , whereas there is clear inconsistency and self- contradiction on the part of defendant, and except the entries in revenue records, the defendant failed to place any material in proofof her title and thus, she failed to substantiate her case. t \ LNA, J SA.No 3 of2025

14. Leamed counsel for appellant failed to raise my substantial question.oflaw to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are.factual ir nature and do .not qualif' as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section i00 C.P.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section i00 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the finrlings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are ba;ed on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. l6. Further. in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Court sining in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under. Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only wher,: a substantial question of laW is raised and falls for consideration. 17. Having considered the entire material available <,n record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this ( ourt finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said fildings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant are L 1ZOOI1 t Supreme Court Cases 546 t2 SA.No i oI )02i factual in nafure and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.

18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingty dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To, '1. The Principal District Judge, Suryapet 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. 3. One CC to Sri Srinivas Pendota, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Rama Kotaiah, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies kam/DL HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 010312025 I JUDGMENT SA.No.3 of 2025 1HE S14 oR( t2 JUt't'zffi o C) ) \ $ r' ,/ THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION xD t gh