Telangana High Court
Kamati Dhanunjay vs Dornala Sathaiah Died on 12 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.282 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 28.02.2022, passed by the V Additional District
Judge, Bhongir, in A.S.No.22 of 2017, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Junior Civil Judge,
Ramannapet, in O.S.No.247 of 2008.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties 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 appellant/plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.247 of
2008 against the respondents/defendants for perpetual
injunction. It is stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and
possessor of the land, admeasuring Acs.0.20 guntas of dry land
situated in Survey No.13 of Choutuppal Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District, having purchased the same from its original
owner under registered sale deed dated 03.06.1994. The name of
the plaintiff was also recorded in the revenue records. It is
further stated that out of said Ac.0.20 guntas of land, the plaintiff 2 LNA, J S.A.No.282 of 2023
sold Ac.0.15 guntas of land to Sargam Harahari and Thota
Yadaiah and the remaining Ac.0.05 gutnas of land is in his
possession. The defendants, having no manner of right or
interest over the suit schedule property, have tried to enter into
the suit schedule property on 18.12.2008 by removing the
boundary stones illegally.
4. The defendant No.1 filed a written statement and the same
was adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 5. The defendants denied the
averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff
purchased Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Survey No.13 and thereafter,
converted it into house plots and sold them to several persons
and he is left with no piece of land.
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and
Exs.A1 and A.14 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,
D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
6. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, held that the appellant failed to prove his
possession over Acs.0.05 guntas of land and therefore, he is not
entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, and accordingly 3 LNA, J S.A.No.282 of 2023
dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2017.
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal vide
A.S.No.22 of 2017. The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of
the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on
record, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
28.02.2022. Hence, the present Second Appeal.
7. Heard Sri T.V. Kalyan Singh, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri D. Srinivas Reddy, the learned counsel for the
respondents. Perused the record.
8. The 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 erred
in confirming the same. He further contended that both the
Courts below wrongly interpreted Exs.A2 to 8 and came to the
conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove his
possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing
of the suit. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel 4 LNA, J S.A.No.282 of 2023
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sk. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee 1.
9. In Sk. Bhikan's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
having regard to issues involved regarding inheritance and
ownership based on interpretation of documents (exhibits), the
questions concerned did constitute substantial question of law.
10. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. However, the
facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are
completely different and thus, the above judgment has no
application to the present case.
11. As seen from the record, the appellant/plaintiff has taken a
plea that he is in possession of Ac.0.05 guntas of land, after
alienating Ac.0.15 guntas of land, out of Ac.0.20 guntas of land
owned by him. However, the evidence let in by the appellant is
contrary to the pleadings. Further, the documents marked on
behalf of the appellant would show that the appellant converted
the agricultural land of Ac.0.20 guntas into house plots and sold
the plots to various parties, which is evident from the documents
1 (2017) 5 SCC 127 5 LNA, J S.A.No.282 of 2023
executed by the appellant under Exs.A.10 and A.11. Therefore, it
is clear that the appellant had approached the Court with unclean
hands by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts.
12. It is settled principle that any amount of evidence is of no
use, if there are no pleadings, as held by the Apex Court in
Mohammad Mustafa vs Sri Abu Bakar 2.
13. Further, the learned counsel failed to raise any substantial
question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal
and 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
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.
15. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 3, the Apex Court held that
the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the
2 AIR 1971 SC 361 3 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 6 LNA, J S.A.No.282 of 2023
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.
16. 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 appellant 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: 12.01.2024
va
