Telangana High Court
Pulicheri Ramulu vs Bollu Sammi Reddy on 26 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.259 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda in AS.No.80 of 2022, whereunder and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.24 of 2010, was confirmed.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the house plot bearing No.36 (part) out of Survey No.1066, situated at Srinivasa Nagar, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District (herein after referred to as 'suit schedule property') having purchased the same under an agreement of sale dated 20.04.1994 from his vendor Nellutla Kamala Devi. The said Nellutla Kamala Devi purchased the suit schedule property from D.Narsimha Swamy under registered Sale Deed vide 2 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 document No.226/1966 on 31.01.1966. The plaintiff commenced construction of residential house in the year 1998, however, he could not complete the construction due to paucity of funds. Subsequently, the plaintiff again resumed construction of the house on 15.01.2010, and while the work was in progress, the defendant entered the suit schedule property, caused obstruction and interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The defendant again entered the suit schedule property on 17.01.2010, and caused further obstruction and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the subject property. Aggrieved by the acts of the defendant, plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He pleaded ignorance of the transaction through which the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. N.Kamala Devi had purchased property from D.Narsimha Swamy. He contended that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were false, fabricated and that N.Kamala Devi never executed any agreement of sale, as she does not know how to sign, so she uses her thumb impression as a substitute for a 3 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 signature. Having denied all the averments in the plaint, the defendant contended that one G.Sada Shiva Reddy filed suit vide OS.No.146 of 1982 on 28.02.1982, for specific performance of an agreement of sale against N.Kamala Devi in respect of house plot admeasuring 356 Sq.yards and the subject suit schedule property also forms part and parcel of it, situated at Srinivasanagar, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The said suit was dismissed and against the dismissal of the said suit an appeal was preferred vide AS.No.20 of 1989 which was ended in compromise and the terms of compromise were recorded on 26.09.1994 before the District Court, Warangal, wherein N.Kamala Devi put her thumb impression. As per the terms of the said compromise, the entire area of plot No.36, admeasuring 356 Sq.Yards was delivered to G.Sadashiva Reddy on 25.02.1982. It was further contended that one G.Raji Reddy sold house plot No.36, admeasuring 176 Sq.yards on behalf of Bollu Subhadra, wife of plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005, in favour of wife of defendant, for a valuable consideration and delivered possession. As on the date of the said agreement, vacant possession was delivered to the wife of defendant, and since then she has been in peaceful 4 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 possession and enjoyment of the said plot and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. To what relief?"
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.
7. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit with costs by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2018. The trial Court while decreeing the suit made the following observations:-
"To prove the execution of Ex.A2 and A3, the plaintiff also got examined PW.2 who is attestor of Ex.A2. PW.2 in his chief affidavit deposed in support of PW.1 and further stated that he along with 5 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 G.Sadasiva Reddy attested Ex.A2 and the receipt Ex.A3. During cross-examination, it was elicited that PW.2, since 1999 is residing at Guntur District but however he got mentioned his residence as Athmakur in his chief affidavit. It is clear that since 1999, PW.1 is residing at Guntur District and since then is not residing at Warangal. However, this cannot brush the evidence of PW.2 aside as Ex.A2 is of 1994 by which year PW.2 was a resident of Warangal. ...........it is pertinent to mention that the defendant has not given any suggestion or contradicted the statement of PW.2 as G.Sadasiva Reddy being a second attestor to Ex.A2 which amounts to admission. Thus, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A2 and A3, it goes to show that the plaintiff purchased the property and is in possession of the same since then."
"Though DW.1 deposed in the cross examination that it is he who has raised the construction, did not plead the same in its written statement for the best reasons known to him. Thus, it appears that it is plaintiff who raised construction."
"The defendant has not explained as to how Raji Reddy is authorized to sell the suit schedule property on behalf of Subadra, wife of plaintiff. Even if considered for a moment that Raji Reddy is authorized to sell the property, there ought to have existed a document under which Subadra purchased the property from Kamala Devi. Admittedly, the 6 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 defendant is silent as to how Subadra received the property and its nature of document. In the absence of the link, the theory of sale of property by Raji Reddy on behalf of the wife of plaintiff to the wife of defendant, do not hold any water. It is further pertinent to mention that when defendant on one hand claims that the entire property of plot No.36 was handed over by Kamala Devi to Sadasiva Reddy under AS.No.20/1989, then how on earth its possible for Raji Reddy to sell the same plot No.36 admeasuring 176 Sq.Yards to the wife of the defendant on behalf of the wife of the plaintiff. These two transactions averred by the defendant contradict each other. Even considering for a moment that Raji Reddy is authorized to sell property of Plot No.36, it inturn gets admitted that there exists a sale transactions between Kamala Devi and the plaintiff or his wife. Thus, this clearly goes to show that the defence of the defendant holds no water and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant got examined DW.2 and DW.3 on its behalf who in their chief affidavit deposed in consonance with DW.1 but during cross examination their evidence was shaken. DW.2 who deposed purchase of the property by defendant through Raji Reddy in his chief affidavit, in cross examination it was elicted that DW.2 does not know how Subadra obtained the property and further he is not an attestor to the said document. Thus, the 7 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 details as to how DW2 learnt about the alleged agreement of sale of the defendant, which has not seen the light of the day. On similar lines, DW.3 in his cross examination deposed that the defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed which is never perused by him or is he attesting witness to the same. DW.3, further does not know how the vendor of the defendant obtained the property. Thus, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 are of no help to the plaintiff."
8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant preferred appeal in AS.No.80 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2025. In the impugned Judgment, the first Appellate Court made the following observations:
"The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A3 clearly shows that the plaintiff has purchased the property under agreement of sale. The contentions of the defendant that the plaintiff claiming ownership basing on the agreement of sale. It is to be noted that the documents filed by the plaintiff was impounded. At the same time the defendant is claiming that the part of the suit schedule property was in the name of 8 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 his wife, who has purchased the property under agreement of sale.
On one hand the defendant contending that an agreement of sale obtained by plaintiff is invalid. On the other hand the agreement of sale is in favour of defendant's wife is valid. It is clearly shows the double standards of the defendant, the documents of the plaintiff clearly proved prima facie he is in possession of the property. Hence, he is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed."
9. Challenging the aforesaid Judgment and Decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed by the defendant.
10. Heard Ms.Shravani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, failed to consider the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming title under an agreement of sale which does not confer any title to the respondent/plaintiff and the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the Fist Appellate Court without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record 9 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 on behalf of the appellant/defendant. She further submits that except oral evidence no material or evidence is placed by the respondent/plaintiff in proof of ownership and title, therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the same. She further submits that the appellant in appeal specifically contended that he purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005 and also undertook construction, however, this aspect was not considered by both the Courts. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned Judgment has to be set aside.
12. A perusal of record discloses that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for injunction simplicitor, however, title of the parties can be gone into incidentally. The respondent/plaintiff filed three documents in support of his contention i.e., Ex.A1-Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 31.01.1966 bearing document No.226/1966, Ex.A2-Notarized agreement of sale, dated 20.04.1994, and Ex.A3-Receipt, dated 25.04.1994 and also got himself examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 to 4. PW.2 is the attestor of Ex.A2.
10
LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025
13. However, the appellant/defendant did not place any material on record though he claimed that he purchased the suit schedule property under agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005. Though the appellant/defendant contended that vendor of plaintiff Kamala Devi handed over the subject property to G.Sadashiva Reddy in terms of compromise entered into between them in AS.No.20/1989, the said compromise recorded by the District Court, Warangal, is not filed by the appellant. Further, the appellant/defendant failed to explain as to how G.Raji Reddy was empowered to execute agreement of sale on behalf of wife of plaintiff and as to how she got the suit schedule property.
14. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff proved his possession over suit schedule property, whereas the defendant failed to substantiate his claim. Further, both the Courts have specifically observed that the defendant has taken contradictory stand and has failed to substantiate the same.
15. In considered opinion of this Court, the learned 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 11 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 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 Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
17. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting 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 where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration.
18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised 1 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 12 LNA, J S.A.No.259 of 2025 by the appellant 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. No costs.
20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:26.06.2025 tk