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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
(2002) 1 SCC 234
2011 (5) ALD 327 (DB);
(2022) 7 SCC 247
(2006) 5 SCC 545
(2019) 8 SCC 637
(2016) 11 SCC 374
(2021) 3 SCC 675
(2018) 5 SCC 376
AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 188
(2018) 12 SCC 647
(2021) 2 SCC 718
(2004) 1 SCC 769
LNA, J
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
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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
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
