Telangana High Court
Thakur Parvathi Bai vs Gandla Mohan Reddy on 2 January, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.536 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree dated 28.10.2023 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2021 on the file
of the Principle District Judge, Peddapalli, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 20.05.2020 passed in O.S.No.193 of
2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. Thus, the
present Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of
trial Court as well as first appellate Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to file the present Second Appeal are
that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor
of the suit schedule plot measuring to an extent of 242 sq.yds in
Sy.No.523/1 and 527/1, situated at Peddapalli village and
Mandal. The suit schedule plot is the part and parcel of Ac.4-10
gts in Sy.Nos.523/1 and 527/1 belonging to the plaintiff, which
was purchased by her father in-law namely Nanda Ram Singh,
who in turn purchased the land to an extent of Ac.6-10 gts in
Sy.Nos.523/1 and 527/1 through a registered sale deed
No.1049/64, dated 19.09.1964 from late Venkata Murali
LNA, J
Manohar Rao, who was the pattedar. The said Nanda Ram
Singh has only one son namely Narayana Singh, who pre-
deceased to Nanda Ramsingh. After his death, being the legal
heir, the plaintiff succeeded the land to an extent of Ac.4-10 gts
out of Ac.6-10 gts in which the suit plot is a part.
4. The plaintiff has contended that the defendant, who is no
way concerned with the suit schedule plot, without any right or
title raised a temporary shed and when the plaintiff along with
his elders demanded the defendant to remove the shed, the
defendant has refused to remove the shed and instead of
removing the temporary shed, the defendant making the
arrangements to raise permanent structure in the suit land.
Therefore, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.193 of 2011 before the
Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, for declaration of title and
recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.
5. The defendant has filed written statement denying the
plaint averments and inter alia stating that he purchased the
suit plot admeasuring 242 sq.yds in Sy.No.523-527/2,3 Plot
No.47 situated at Peddapalli through registered sale deed
No.1300/2003 and rectification deed No.5601/2011 from its
original owner namely Takur Devender Singh. As per the
revenue records Takur Devender Singh and Laxman Singh are
LNA, J
the one of the pattedars of the land in Sy.No.523-527/2, 3. The
defendant further submitted that his vendor Takur Devender
Singh executed a rectification deed since survey number was
wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.523 instead of Sy.No.523-527/2, 3
and the said mistake was rectified through rectification deed
No.5600/2011.
6. Further, it is contended that the defendant has
constructed a house in the suit schedule plot after obtaining
permission vide File No.A2/701/2005, dated 08.08.2005 from
Grampanchayat Peddapalli and since then the defendant is in
continuous possession of the suit schedule plot even to the
knowledge of the plaintiff. The defendant has also been paying
house tax regularly to the Grampanchayat. Further the
defendant has constructed a house in Survey No.523-527/2, 3
wherein the plaintiff is seeking declaration against the
defendant by showing wrong boundaries of the land in
Sy.No.523-527/2, 3. It is contended that as per revenue
records, the plaintiff is neither owner nor possessor of the land
in Sy.No.523-527/2, 3 and moreover the plaintiff has no right or
title over the house of the defendant constructed in the suit
plot. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.
LNA, J
7. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1
and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On
behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and
Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.
8. The trial Court, after considering the entire material
available on record, vide its judgment and decree dated
20.05.2020, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has filed A.S.No.14 of 2021. The first appellate Court on
re-appreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the
material available on record vide judgment and decree dated
28.10.2023 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present second
appeal.
9. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the
appellants. Perused the record.
10. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case
either by way of oral or documentary evidence and also held
that the plaintiff has wrongly mentioned in the plaint that the
husband of plaintiff alone is the legal heir of the deceased
Nanda Ram Singh though there is an another son to Nanda
Ram Singh.
LNA, J
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
only where a substantial question of law is raised and fell for
consideration.
15. 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
appellant are factual in nature and no question of law much
less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this
Second Appeal.
16. 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: 02.01.2024
Dua
