Maddula Gangamma vs Doddaka Appa Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 344 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN


                 SECOND APPEAL NO.384 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

The present Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and

Decree in A.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri, dated 28.12.2018 confirming the Judgment and decree

in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri, dated 06.11.2014.

2. The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate

Court and the Plaintiff in the suit. The respondent herein is the

respondent before the lower appellate court and the defendant in the

suit. The action was initiated by the plaintiff in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on

the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri seeking

permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property

against the defendant claiming that she is the absolute owner of the

plaint schedule property and she is running a hotel business in the

said property by purchasing the same under a registered sale deed,

dated 02.07.2002. Ever since, she has been in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the same. Whereas the defendant herein, daughter-

in-law of the plaintiff by name Padma and one Narasimharao colluded

together and hatched a plan with a malafide intention to grab the

plaint schedule property and the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to

borrow money by mortgaging the plaint schedule property, as there

were certain debts to the plaintiff in the village. The plaintiff having

believed the words of the defendant, agreed to mortgage the plaint

schedule property by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- together

with interest @ 24% per annum from the defendant. Taking

advantage of her illiteracy and innocence, the defendant gave an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff and took the plaintiff to Sub-

Registrar office, Tadikonda and got executed a registered sale deed on

14.02.2011 instead of mortgage deed. Thereafter when the plaintiff

offered to pay back the debt amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the defendant

has started harassing the plaintiff to vacate the plaint schedule

property stating that he has purchased the same from the plaintiff.

Then with a shock and surprise, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice,

dated 29.04.2013 demanding the defendant not to interfere with her

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property

and return the original title deed to the plaintiff along with the non-

judicial stamp receipts which are registered at Sub-Registrar Office,

Tadikonda by receiving back the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. As the

defendant failed to comply with the same, she has initiated the action

in the above said suit for permanent injunction with respect to the

plaint schedule property against the defendant.

3. Then he has resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing the

written statement contending that in order to meet her family

necessities, the plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property to the

defendant for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed,

dated 14.02.2011 and delivered possession of the same on the date of

execution of the sale deed itself. The plaintiff also handed over all the

originals of link documents relating to the schedule property to the

defendant and ever since the defendant became the absolute owner of

the plaint schedule property. Since the plaintiff is carrying on a hotel

business in the plaint schedule property, he allowed her to continue

at her request as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- payable by

her. Accordingly, she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property as a tenant of the defendant. She paid rents

regularly pursuant to an oral lease to the defendant up to December,

2012 and thereafter became a defaulter from January, 2013 onwards.

Finally in the first week of April, 2013, when he demanded the

plaintiff either to pay the arrears of rent or vacate the plaint schedule

premises by the end of April, 2013, in retaliation, she has initiated the

action before the trial court seeking permanent injunction against the

defendant without seeking for cancellation of the sale deed, dated

14.02.2011.

4. Basing upon the above said rival contentions, the trial Court

framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 certified copy of registered sale deed,

dated 02.07.2002, Ex.A2 house tax receipt, dated 16.04.2013, Ex.A3

electricity bills, Ex.A4 residence certificate issued by the Village

Revenue Officer, Pamulapadu, dated 22.01.2009 and Ex.A5 office

copy of the legal notice, dated 29.04.2013. She also examined her

relative as P.W.2. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself

as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1registered sale deed executed by

C.Veeranjaneyulu and his sons in favour of the plaintiff, dated

02.07.2002, Ex.B2 registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in

favour of Talla Malleswararao, dated 06.10.2008, Ex.B3 registered

sale deed executed by Talla Malleswararao in favour of the plaintiff,

datd 17.08.2010 and Ex.B4 registered sale deed executed by the

plaintiff in favour of the defendant, dated 14.02.2011. The defendant

also examined one of the attestors of the registered sale deed of Ex.B4

as D.W.2.

6. It is recorded by the trial court that the plaint schedule property

is an asbestos sheet roofed house bearing D.No.411, Dr.No.6-66 of

Bejathpuram village, Mukkamala village Panchayat, Tadikonda

Mandal with specific boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule

property. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the

trial court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff sold the plaint

schedule property to the defendant for a valid consideration and the

defendant orally let out the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff at

her request on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- Accordingly, the plaintiff is

in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as a

tenant of the defendant. It is also recorded by the trial court that the

defendant has initiated eviction proceedings against the plaintiff in

respect of the plaint schedule property. During the course of

arguments before it, the learned counsel for the defendant filed a

memo along with the judgment passed by the Principal Junior Civil

judge's court, Mangalagiri in O.S.No.7 of 2014, dated 24.06.2014

directing the plaintiff herein to vacate the plaint schedule property.

The trial Court observed that the suit for bare injunction without

seeking for declaration of title is not maintainable that too in the

absence of seeking for cancellation of the title deed marked under

Ex.B4, dated 14.02.2011. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed though

she has established possession over the plaint schedule property, as

she suffered from judgment and decree of eviction in an another suit

as mentioned above with respect to the very same plaint schedule

property.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in

A.S.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

8. Upon consideration of the same on merits, the lower appellate

court has also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by

dismissing the appeal, vide its Judgment, dated 28.12.2018.

9. Assailing the same, the appellant herein preferred this Second

Appeal by raising certain grounds.

10. Upon perusal of the judgments of the courts below, as per the

material available on record and the reasons stated above, this Court

comes to a conclusion that there is no infirmity or otherwise

specifically 'perversity' in the findings and conclusions of the courts

below and as such, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed, as

there is no substantial question of law made out by the appellant

herein.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs of the Second Appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the

Second Appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN 25.01.2021 mp