Telangana High Court
Smt. P. Ramya Vani vs E. Krishna Reddy on 16 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.32 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022 passed in A.S.No.50 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.1976 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy, was confirmed.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-05 gts in survey No.458/ee of Bairagiguda, H/o Lemur village Kandukur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'), having purchased the same from its original owners viz., P.Raghu and another under LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 2 registered sale deed document No.1182/2001 dated 05.05.2001 and her name got mutated in revenue records and she obtained pattadar pass books and title deeds. The plaintiff is residing at USA. Taking advantage of the same, the defendant without having any right, title and interest over the schedule property, frequently visiting the schedule property and was trying to dispossess the GPA of the plaintiff with an intention to grab the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.
4. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments in the plaint inter alia contending that suit is not maintainable as there is no GPA given by plaintiff. It is contended that the boundaries and extant of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint are totally different with the property of the defendant situated in survey No.458/E admeasuring to an extant of Acs.4.02 gts in Lemur Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1807 of 2006 against the defendant. Earlier to O.S.No.1807 of 2006, the defendant filed O.S.No.1753 of 2006 and obtained ex parte temporary injunction against Anjaiah and V.Venkat Reddy to restrain them from LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 3 interfering with his possession. Further, it is contended that the plaintiff is trying to grab the property of the defendant by obtaining the injunction order from the first appellate Court without any right over the property of the defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Court below has framed the following issues:
"1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2. To what relief?"
6. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B33 were marked.
7. The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence and material available on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.2014 by observing as under:
"(i). the plaintiff purchased the property from P.Raghu and P.Anjalah s/o Swamy and Channaiah an extant of 0.05 gts in Sy.No. 458, 458/aa but as seen from the MRO proceeding, MRO got issued LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 4 proceedings dt 25.09.2001 stating that the name of the plaintiff P.Ramya vani was recorded in Sy.No.458/ee an extant of 1.25 gts and Sy.No.458/vuvu in 0.20 gts total 2.05 gts. Even in pattadar passbook title deed also mentioned as the same in Sy.No. 458/ee and 458//Vuvu then the plaintiff has to explain when the sale deed showing the Sy.no. 458, 458/aa then the plaintiff has to clarify the discrepancy of survey number in the sale deed and also in proceeding and revenue records. But no such proper explanation was given by the plaintiff to that effect.
(ii). In the cross examination PW-1 admitted that his father's signature in Doc.no. 1270/84 which was marked as EX.B1, and EX.B1 is very clear that property purchased by B.Parvathaavadani the father of the plaintiff Venkat Reddy mediated as a partwari of the village and his signature in sale deed as a witness and also map which was marked as EX.B1. Then the alignment of the properties as per the map was admitted by the father of the plaintiff as well as PW.1.
(iii). Then it is clear that the defendant got purchased the property from the valid title holders the title of the defendant is that Sy.no.
458/e an extant of 4.02 gts and in sy.No. 474/ee an extant of 0.38 gts was clearly shown as per the documents the defendant got filed the CC of the pahanies which clearly shows the name of Parvathaavadani recorded in the above said lands. As the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the defendant trying to interfere in to the schedule property then it is for the plaintiff to prove the cause of action. Except the plaintiff no witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff."
8. On appeal, the first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 5 record vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2022 dismissed the appeal, by observing as under:
"(i). GPA holder was very much known that his sister was given GPA to him the same not placed before the trial court and the learned Judge rightly came to conclusion since GPA holder did not place the GPA and accordingly plaintiff is not entitle for the relief of injunction and suit is dismissed. For cause of action arose in between plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff has to adduce only the plaintiff has to know that the defendant tried to interfere over the suit schedule property in the absence of the plaintiff and also failed to original GPA and view from these things under Ex.A.1 to A.7 are the shrood and suspicious. There is no fault of the trial court and discuss the details in the absence of the producing the original GPA now the appellant filed in I.A. 877 of 2019 to receive the original General Power of Attorney along with other documents cannot be considered in appeal.
Since the GPA holder not explained any reason why the document not filed before High Court and hence cannot be considered.
(ii). On a careful evaluation of the facts and the contentions of the parties is abundantly clear that there is a dispute with regard to the title over the suit schedule site and the same cannot be decided within a limited sphere of the present suit for an injunction simplicitor. In the absence of the GPA holder failed to produce original GPA and plaintiff did not entered into witness box and prove her contention and there is cause of action arose the defendant tried to enter and occupy the suit schedule property. The plaintiff ought to have sought comprehensive relief of the perpetual injunction, if any, for the relief and then only there would be a possibility of a detailed adjudication over the suit subject matter. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the plaintiff failed to prove and substantiate the case of the plaintiff LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 6 for an injunction simplicitor. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and, accordingly, the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted."
9. Heard Mr.Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Rakesh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
10. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and substantiate his case for injunction simplicitor. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court dismissed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and the first appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgment:
LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 7
(i). M.M.T.C Ltd. and Another Vs. Medchal Chemicals and Pharma Private Limited and another 1;
(ii). Bilasraika Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Devi Trading Co., Hongkong 2;
(iii) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand 3;
(iv) Hero Vinoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal 4;
(v) State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another 5;
(vi) Haryana State and Another Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri 6;
(vii) A.Subramanian and Another Vs. R.Pannerselvam 7;
(viii) Uma Pandey and Another Vs. Munna Pandey and others 8;
(ix) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and Others 9;
(x) Sunkamma (dead) by legal representatives Vs. S.Pushparaj (dead) by legal representatives 10;
(xi) Iqbal Basith and Others Vs. N.Subbalakshmi and others 11;
(xii) Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) LRs.
and another 12;
12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant relates to the scope, limitations and restrictions on to the exercise of jurisdiction in Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The Courts have also laid down principles, ratios, which 1 (2002) 1 SCC 234 2 2011 (5) ALD 327 (DB);
3(2022) 7 SCC 247 4 (2006) 5 SCC 545 5 (2019) 8 SCC 637 6 (2016) 11 SCC 374 7 (2021) 3 SCC 675 8 (2018) 5 SCC 376 9 AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 188 10 (2018) 12 SCC 647 11 (2021) 2 SCC 718 12 (2004) 1 SCC 769 LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 8 can be considered by second Appellate Court while adjudicating second appeal.
13. Some of the principles, ratios laid down by the Courts in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant are that:
(i) the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances;
(ii) if the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court are based on misinterpretation of the documentary evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence or on a finding of fact have ignored admissions or concession made by witnesses or parties, the High Court can interfere in appeal;
(iii) When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached;
(iv) It is a settled principle of law that interpretation of any document including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the lis constitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC.
LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 9
14. There is no quarrel or disagreement with the propositions/ ratios laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts with regard to limited scope of interference that can be exercised by the Appellate Court while adjudicating the second appeal. Therefore, this Court does not feel it necessary to discuss each and every judgment in detail.
15. However, learned counsel for the appellants 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 this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
16. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
17. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 13, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the 13 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 LNA, J S.A.No.32 of 2023 10 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 where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for consideration.
18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellants are 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 16.04.2024 Dua/kkm