Telangana High Court
Are Swamy vs Velpula Sambaiah on 22 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.367 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 20.03.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge,
Jayashankar Bhupalpally, in A.S.No.52 of 2022 (A.S.No.15 of 2018
(old)), confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2018 passed
by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, in O.S.No.20 of 2009.
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.20 of 2009 for
declaration of title and perpetual injunction declaring the registered
sale deed vide Doc.No.22/2002 dated 21.01.2002 as null and void
and not binding on the plaintiff over the land in Survey No.102/A,
admeasuring Acs.1.02½ guntas situated at Vallemkunta Village of
Malhar Rao Mandal.
4. It is contended that the plaintiff was owner and possessor of
the suit schedule property i.e., Acs.1.02 ½ guntas in Survey
No.102/A situated at Vallemkunta Village of Malhar Rao Mandal
(suit land). The defendant No.2 is younger brother of the plaintiff. 2
LNA, J S.A.No.367 of 2023
The suit schedule property is joint family property. The father of the
plaintiff, who was an employee of Singareni Colleries Company
Limited, purchased the said suit land from its original owner
through registered document dated 27.03.1984. After death of their
father, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly succeeded to the suit
land.
5. The plaintiff was residing at Kothagudem. Therefore, the said
land was being cultivated through defendant No.1 on crop share
basis. Taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff and defendant
No.2, the defendant No.1, who is closely related to the plaintiff,
hatched a plan to grab the suit schedule property and fabricated
registered sale deed by forging the signature of the father of the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 by impersonating some other person
as their father before the Sub-Registrar, Manthani, and got executed
a registered sale deed vide document No.22/2002 dated 21.01.2002
in his favour on 21.01.2002. However, the father of the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 died on 23.01.1995.
6. Basing on the said registered sale deed, the defendant No.1
got mutated his name in the revenue records by deleting the name
of the petitioner from the possession column. Though the plaintiff 3 LNA, J S.A.No.367 of 2023
demanded the defendant No.1 to cancel the registered sale deed, the
defendant No.1 bluntly refused for the same. The plaintiff obtained
certified copy of the original sale deed dated 21.01.2002 and on
seeing the same, she was surprised that the defendant No.1 not only
forged the signature of the father of the plaintiff and defendant
No.2, but also forged their signatures. Hence, the suit.
7. The defendant No.2 was set ex parte. The defendant No.1
filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant
No.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 denied the allegations made in the
plaint. In the written statement, it is stated that the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 approached the defendant No.1 for the sale of the
property, and finally, they brought their father to the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Manthani, where their father executed a sale deed in
favour of the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff and defendant No.2
signed on the registered sale deed as attestors. The defendant No.1
has not created/forged any document as alleged by the plaintiff. It
is further stated that defendant No.1 is enjoying the suit schedule
property since 2002 and his name was also mutated in the revenue
records.
4
LNA, J S.A.No.367 of 2023
8. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to
A.9 were marked. On behalf of the defendant No.1, D.W.1 was
examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
9. The trial Court, after considering the entire material available
on record, vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2018, dismissed the
suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.52 of 2022.
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 27.03.2018. Hence, the
present Second Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears for the respondents, despite service of notice.
Perused the record.
11. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts below
concurrently held that the plaintiff, except placing on record Ex.A.2,
death certificate of his father, failed to file other documents and
prove his title over the suit schedule property by adducing cogent
evidence and also failed to rebut the evidence of the defendant 5 LNA, J S.A.No.367 of 2023
No.1, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs
claimed by him.
12. 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.
13. However, the learned counsel 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
Hon'ble 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.
15. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 1, the Hon'ble 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
1 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 6 LNA, J S.A.No.367 of 2023
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: 22.01.2024
va
