Doddi Parvathalu vs Gude Parvathalu
2024 Latest Caselaw 1017 Tel

Telangana High Court

Doddi Parvathalu vs Gude Parvathalu on 11 March, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                SECOND APPEAL No.375 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.2022,

passed in A.S.No.32 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the

Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,

whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated

05.03.2019 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam, in O.S.No.88 of 2013, was

confirmed, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is

the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties

are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts of the case in brief, which led to filing of the

present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking

perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,

servants, henchmen or any other person or persons claiming

through them from causing any sort of interference in the LNA, J

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule land.

3.1. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff is the absolute

owner and possessor of the agricultural land, admeasuring

Acs.2.00 guntas, situated in Survey No.326 of Tulekhurd Village,

Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the

same under a registered sale deed dated 28.05.2009 vide

document No.5662/2009, for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ever since the date of the purchase of the said property, the

plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It

was further averred that the name of the plaintiff was also

mutated in the revenue records as pattadar of the suit schedule

property vide proceedings dated 09.02.2010 issued by the

Tahsildar, Yacharam Mandal.

3.2. It was further averred that on 25.11.2013, the defendants,

who are having their lands on the western side of the suit

schedule property, tried to interfere with the possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in a

highhanded manner. The plaintiff resisted the acts of the LNA, J

defendants, but, the defendants, while leaving the suit schedule

property, openly threatened the plaintiff that they would occupy

the suit schedule property in future. Therefore, the plaintiff

lodged a complaint with the Police, Yacharam. But, no action has

been taken thereon. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The defendants filed common written statement denying

the plaint averments and stating that the defendant No.1

purchased Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.324, Ac.1.11 guntas in

Survey No.325 and Ac.2.31 guntas in Survey No.326, totally

admeasuring Acs.4.12 guntas of land, in Tulekhurd Village,

Yacharam Mandal, under a registered sale deed dated 15.02.1994.

It is averred that the defendant No.2 purchased Ac.0.10 guntas in

Survey No.324, Ac.1.11 guntas in Survey No.325 and Ac.2.32

guntas in Survey No.326, totally admeasuring Acs.4.13 guntas of

land, in Tulekhurd Village, Yacharam Mandal, under a registered

sale deed dated 15.02.1994. It is further averred that the said sale

deeds were executed by Belde Narsimha S/o. Chandraiah.

4.1. The defendants averred that the names of the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the LNA, J

said lands purchased by them and they are in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the said lands. It is further averred that one

Devuni Narsimha filed O.S.No.107 of 2005 on the file of the

Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, against the defendant No.1

and the vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Gude Chandraiah,

seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1.33 guntas in

Survey No.326 of Tulekhurd Village, basing upon the mutation

effected in the name of Devuni Narsimha, as per the proceedings

of the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam.

4.2. It was further averred that defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed

O.S.No.90 of 2013 and O.S.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the Junior

Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, against the plaintiff and his vendors

seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.4.12 guntas

belonging to defendant No.1 and Acs.4.13 guntas belonging to

defendant No.2.

4.3. It was further averred that the plaintiff filed the present

suit i.e., O.S.No.88 of 2013 on the file of the same Court and tried

to take advantage of the interim orders passed in the present suit.

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 resisted the claim of the plaintiff over LNA, J

the said property. It is further averred that defendant Nos.1 and

2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property by virtue of the rights acquired under the registered sale

deeds.

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the trial court

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. If so, whether the defendants are interfering with such possession illegally?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as claimed?

4. To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the

defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B32 were

marked.

7. After the full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral

and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the

parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2019

decreed the suit.

LNA, J

8. The trial Court categorically observed as under:-

"DW1 who is the wife of D1 in her chief examination stated that, the D1 sold an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas and herself/D2 sold an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas of land to third parties vide registered doc. No.3652/2014 dated 03.07.2014 and 9955/2014 dated 23.07.2014. But, the defendant filed registered sale deed doc.no.9955/2014 only. Ex.B.27 is the CC of sale deed doc. No.9955/2014, which is shown that Doddi Parvathalu, D.Yadamma with their sons D. Babaiah, D. Anjaiah sold Ac.2.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.326 to one B. Padmini. The defendants failed to file another document i.e., registered doc. No.3652/2014 dated 03.07.2014 to know that in which sy. Number the defendant sold their lands and their extents. But, they pleaded that after their selling of land, Ac.0.23 guntas was remained in Sy.No.326. But as the defendants did not file doc.No.3652/2014, the defendants failed to prove that they are having Ac.0.23 guntas in Sy.No.326. Further one S.Ramachandraiah who is examined as DW3, in his cross- examination stated that D1 and D2 never sold their land till 10.10.2018. Hence, the evidence of DW1 is not corroborating with the evidence of DW3.

From the above discussion it is clear that the plaintiff is having Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.No.326 and the defendants even though stated that they are having Ac.0.23 guntas of land in Sy.No.326 did not file any documents."

8.1. The trial Court further observed as under:

"As Ex.A9 and A10 believable with regard to the possession and Ex.B1 and B2 are not corroborating with the LNA, J

evidence of DW1, this court came to conclusion that the plaintiff is the possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit.

...

"That there is dispute with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property. Both the plaintiff as well as defendant are claiming that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. After filing O.S.90/2013 and O.S.91/2013, both suits are dismissed as not pressed as the defendants/plaintiffs in O.S.90/2013 and 91/2013 are sold their lands to third parties in the year 2014. But, DW1 in her chief and cross examination stated that D1 and D2 are having Ac.0.23 guntas of land even after they sold out their lands to third parties. This court perused Ex.B7 and B8 and found that those suits were filed by the plaintiffs to an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas in sy.no.326. If, Ac.0.23 guntas are remaining in sy.no.326 by the defendants herein they might not withdrawn those cases."

9. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact-

finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and the material

available on record and dismissed the appeal confirming the

judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 05.03.2019.

9.1. The first Appellate Court observed as hereunder:-

"Even at the cost of repetition, it is essential to recapitulate that it is the stand of DW1 that she and the 1st defendant sold a major extent in Sy.No.326 and retained a small extent of LNA, J

Ac.0-23 guntas only and that the purchasers of their land have been in possession of those extents. In the same context, it is essential to recollect the stand of the defendants that they never disputed the original title of Belde Narsimha and also the purchases made by the vendors of PW1 under the originals of Exs.A2 and A3 from Belde Narsimha, as, in fact, a common defence was taken by Gude Chandraiah and the 1st defendant in the suit filed by Devuni Narsimha, as can be seen from Ex.B6, of which, much discussion is made in the foregoing paras."

9.2. The first Appellate Court further observed as under:-

"On a cumulative study of the entire evidence placed by the parties, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff proved his right over the suit schedule property by virtue of his title under Ex.Al and also his possession evidenced by Exs.A4 to A10 and the defendants, having taken the original stand in the pleadings that PWI and his vendor created false documents to lay a false claim, failed to prove that stand and, furthermore, failed to show that the suit schedule property is part of the lands purchased by the defendants 1 and 2 vide Doc. Nos.343/94 and 344/94 and further failed to show that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule land, in view of the inconsistent evidence of DWs. 1 to 4, as discussed above.

Even at the cost of repetition, it is essential to mention here that the original title of Belde Narsimha and the purchases made by the vendors of the plaintiff under the originals of Exs.A2 and A3 are not disputed by the LNA, J

defendants and that the plaintiff, by proving the source of title in a chronological order, as discussed in me foregoing paras and also by showing his continuous possession over the It schedule property, established the claim of the plaintiff to seek a perpetual unction against the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to seek the perpetual injunction, since it is the evidence of PW1 that the defendants, being adjacent owners of the suit schedule property, made an abortive attempt trespass into the suit schedule property and the same could be resisted by PW1 with great difficulty."

10. Heard Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for

the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record.

11. A perusal of the record discloses that the trial Court held

that the plaintiff proved that he purchased Acs.2.00 guntas of

land in Survey No.326 from his vendor and Exs.A.9 and A.10 are

confirming his possession and therefore the plaintiff is entitled

for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants.

12. On appeal, the first appellate Court confirmed the

judgment of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff proved his

right over the suit schedule property by virtue of his title under LNA, J

Ex.A.1, and therefore, he is entitled to entitled to seek a perpetual

injunction against the defendants.

13. The learned counsel for appellants 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

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 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

(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 LNA, J

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 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. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 11.03.2024 va