Telangana High Court
Bokkala Veera Reddy vs Gunda Bal Reddy on 29 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.434 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and
decree dated 20.01.2022 in A.S.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the judgment and
decree dated 14.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2011 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, was
confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred to as they were 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 exclusive
possessor of the lands in Survey No.333/B to an extent of Ac.1-
26 guntas, Survey No.344/A to an extent of 0-31 guntas and
Survey No.344/C to an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas, situated at
Thummanapalli village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar
District (herein after referred to as 'suit land'). The father of the
plaintiff had purchased part of suit land in Sy.No.333/B to an
extent of Ac.1-26 guntas from one Bokkala Bhumaiah for valid
consideration in the year 1957 through a simple sale deed. It is
also contended that the plaintiff purchased the land in
LNA, J
Sy.No.344/A to an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas and Sy.No.344/C to
an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas, from his vendor namely Gunda Bal
Reddy for valid consideration on 05.04.1996 through a simple
sale deed and the vendor of the plaintiff had delivered the
possession thereof and since then, the plaintiff is in possession
and enjoyment over the suit lands. The suit lands are separate
lands and not compact plots.
4. Further, it is contended that on 08.06.2011, when the
plaintiff was ploughing the suit lands for the next crop, the
defendants with a malafide intention tried to interfere with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
lands. However, the plaintiff with the timely help of well wishers
resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and the defendants
while going unsuccessfully declared that they will dispossess
the plaintiff from the suit lands in the near future. Therefore,
the plaintiff has preferred O.S.No.108 of 2011 before the
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, for perpetual
injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit lands.
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement denying the
averments made by the plaintiff inter alia contending that the
plaintiff is not the owner and exclusive possessor of the suit
LNA, J
land and that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner and
exclusive possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0-27 guntas in
Survey.No.333/F situated at Thummanapalli village shivar of
Huzurabad Mandal Revenue of Karimnagar District.
6. It is contended that long back, the father of the defendant
No.2 purchased the said land in the name of the defendant No.2
from one Annadi Veeraiah, who was original owner of the said
land. The father of defendant No.2 delivered the possession of
the said land to defendant No.2 and since then defendant No.2
is enjoying the ownership and possession over the said land. It
is further contended that the plaintiff having land to southern
side to the land of defendant No.2 and after filing the above suit,
on 26.07.2011 the plaintiff tried to disturb and dispossess
defendant No.2 from his land, therefore, defendant No.2 filed
O.S.No.171 of 2011 for grant of perpetual injunction. Hence,
they prayed to dismiss the present suit.
7. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, PW1 and
PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf
of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exs.B1 to
B10 were marked.
LNA, J
8. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, vide its judgment and decree dated
14.11.2017, dismissed the suit by observing that item No.1 of
plaint schedule property is sold by Bokkala Kanthamma, who is
the wife of Bokkala Bhumaiah from whom the father of the
plaintiff alleged to have purchased the land to an extent of
Ac.0-63 guntas in Survey No.333 under Ex.A11. Further, the
plaintiff failed to disprove Ex.B7, which is the sale deed
executed by one Bokkala Kanthamma in favour of one Gunda
Pula to an extent of Ac.1-26 guntas in Survey No.333/B.
9. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire
evidence and perusal of the material available on record vide
judgment and decree dated 20.01.2022 dismissed the appeal by
observing as under:
"Therefore, the case law cited by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff would not render any assistance
in support of the case of the plaintiff. Even otherwise,
whatever the defense put-forth by the Defendants,
however it may be weak, but the weakness of the defense
or the failure on the part of the Defendants, would not
enable the plaintiff to a decree.
There is no dispute on the fact that the plaintiff
filed the suit for perpetual injunction claiming that he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
as on the date of filing the suit while claiming that the
defendants made an attempt to infringe or invade his
LNA, J
legal rights. In view of the same, referring to the
discussion made as above in respect of issues No.1 and
2, it can be said that basing on evidence on record, the
trail court correctly recorded findings and dismissed the
suit refusing to grant injunction. Therefore, this court do
not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by
the trail."
10. Heard Mr.V.Srikantha Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms.Mukkera Sahithi Sri Kavya learned counsel
for the respondents. Perused the record.
11. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court as
well as first appellate Court concurrently held that the plaintiff
failed to establish his possession in respect of the suit property
as on the date of filing of the suit and thus, the plaintiff is not
entitled to the perpetual injunction. Further, the first appellate
Court has held that whatever the defense put-forth by the
defendants, however, it may be weak, but the weakness of the
defense or the failure on the part of the defendants, would not
enable the plaintiff to a decree.
12. Learned counsel for 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
LNA, J
in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court.
13. However, 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 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.
14. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the
Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings
arrived at by the trial Court and first appellate Court, which are
based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record.
15. 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.
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
16. Having considered the entire material available on record
and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the
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.
17. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:29.02.2024
Dua
