Telangana High Court
Badineni Rajender Reddy vs Kayithi Devaiah on 1 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.43 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge,
Jagtial, in A.S.No.5 of 2018, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Jagtial, in O.S.No.202 of 2015.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are
arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal
are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.202 of
2015 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of
the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey
No.392/AA situated at Mothe Village, Jagtial Mandal.
4. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff purchased the
agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas in Survey
No.392/AA situated at Mothe Village, Jagtial, from its original
owner by name Kolagani Narsaiah through registered sale deed
LNA, J
vide document No.507 of 2005, dated 19.02.2005 and since then,
he has been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the same
and his name was also mutated in the relevant revenue records as
pattadar and possessor.
5. It was further averred that on enquiry, the plaintiff came to
know that his vendor- Kolaganti Narsaiah purchased the suit land
from its owner Gunda Narsaiah through a simple sale deed and the
said Narsaiah was in possession of Ac.0.15 guntas of land though
he is pattadar of Ac.0.11 guntas as per revenue records. Further,
from the date of purchase, the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Kolaganti
Narsaiah was in continuous possession of the suit land, cultivating
the same and paying the land revenue in respect of the suit
schedule land and have also been issued pattadar pass book and
thus, perfected his title by way of adverse possession.
6. It was also averred that if the fact that defendant No.3, who
claims to be the sole legal heir of the said Gunda Narsaiah, was in
possession of the suit land immediately after his death, was true,
she would not have kept quiet for a period of 27 years without
applying for mutation of her name in the revenue records.
LNA, J
However, on the frivolous application filed by her before the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial, the said authority, without
following the Rules and Regulations, mutated the name of
defendant No.3 in the revenue records. Therefore, defendant Nos.1
to 3 have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule land and they
planned to grab the same by all illegal means and started to cause
unauthorized interference with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
7. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement denying the
plaint averments and stated that Gunda Narsaiah, who was
unmarried, died intestate in the year 1978. It is further stated that
the name of Gunda Narsaiah was recorded in the pahanies as
pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule land till the year 1977-
78. However, in the subsequent pahanies from the year 1978-79 his
name was wrongly removed and the name of one Kolagani
Narsaiah was wrongly recorded in pattadar and occupant columns.
Therefore, defendant No.3 filed a petition before Mandal Revenue
Officer, Jagtial for cancellation and rectification of the wrong
entries and the said authority, after conducting a detailed enquiry,
LNA, J
passed order dated 17.12.2005 holding that the mutation granted in
the name of Kolagani Narsaiah is invalid and ordered to delete his
name in the pahanies for the year 1978-79 and to record the name
of Gunda Narsaiah as pattadar and occupant. It was also ordered
that no mutation shall be effected in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit schedule land as per the proceedings of the
Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 20.4.2005.
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A.32 were marked. However, the evidence of P.W-5 was
eschewed. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were
examined and Exs.B-1 to B-74 were marked.
9. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, observed that the plaintiff took contradictory
and conflicting stand that his vendor had perfected his title by
virtue of a simple sale deed i.e., Ex.A-1 and then the plaintiff set up
a registered sale deed, dated 19.02.2005, in his favour under Ex.A-
24 and thus, came to a conclusion that the defendants established
their title and possession over the suit schedule property by
producing convincing and cogent evidence and accordingly,
LNA, J
dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018 passed by
the trial Court, the plaintiff filed appeal vide A.S.No.5 of 2018.
10. The first Appellate Court, being the final Court to adjudicate
on the facts of the case, re-appreciated the entire evidence and the
material available on record and held that the documents filed by
defendant No.3 clearly established that she and her predecessor-in-
title i.e., her brother-Gunda Narsaiah have been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property since long years. The first
appellate Court also observed that except producing Ex.A-24-
registered sale deed, the plaintiff did not produce any document
and therefore, basing on the said document, it cannot be said that
the plaintiff established his title over the suit schedule property.
The first Appellate Court further observed that the plaintiff got
himself examined as P.W-1 and admitted about filing of O.S.No.53
of 2009, O.S.No.89 of 2008, CC.No.179 of 2006 and Crime
No.308 of 2008 against him by different persons in various courts
and also about the rowdy sheet opened against him in Dharmapuri
Police Station. It was also observed that the plaintiff admitted that
LNA, J
the name of Gunda Narsaiah was recorded as pattadar and
possessor of the suit schedule land in the pahani for the year 1977-
78. By holding thus, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, vide
judgment and decree dated 09.01.2018. Hence, the present Second
Appeal.
11. Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned counsel for
the respondents, and perused the record.
12. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts below
concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish his title over
the suit schedule property.
13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the
trial Court decreed 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.
14. However, learned counsel for appellant failed to raise any
substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this
LNA, J
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.
15. 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 on
facts arrived at by the Courts below, which are based on proper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
16. 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 fell for
consideration.
17. 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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised 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.
18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date: 01 .02.2024
dr
