[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Anupati Ramaswamy vs Dr. M. Nirmala Devi on 2 December, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                   HYDERABAD

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

             SECOND APPEAL No.479 of 2025

            THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Anupati Ramaswamy and 15 others
                                             ...Appellants
                          AND

Dr. M. Nirmala Devi and 5 others
                                           ...Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Rohan Aloor, learned counsel for the

appellants on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.14 of 2023, dated 10.06.2025

on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at

Mahabubnagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.101 of 2011 dated 17.03.2022 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahabubnagar.

3. The Respondent No. 1 originally filed a suit seeking

relief of perpetual injunction against the appellants herein and

respondents 2 to 6 with respect to property consisting of

agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.00 Gts. out of

Ac.9.33 Gts. in Sy.No.154/2 situated at Yenugonda Village,

Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. The Respondent No.1

claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property through

a registered sale deed from appellant Nos.2 and 8, respondent

No.3 and fathers of some of the appellants/respondent Nos.2

to 6, who were occupants of the suit land. The suit schedule

property is Inam land. The respondent No.1 secured

occupancy rights certificate from the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mahabubnagar after due enquiry. The respondent

No.1 claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property ever since its purchase. The revenue

authorities have issued title deed and pattadar passbook in

favour of respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule

property. In the year 2002, when there was interference

from appellant No.8, father of respondent No.4 along

with their associates, the respondent No. 1 filed suit in

O.S.No.240 of 2002 seeking perpetual injunction and said suit

was decreed. Thereafter, in the year 2006, respondent No.1

obtained permission from Yenugonda Grampanchayath for

construction of compound wall around the suit schedule

property along with a room meant for use by a watchman. The

construction of compound wall and a room for watchman was

meant for preventing encroachment from others i.e., to protect

the land from land grabbers. While things stood thus, the

daughter of Respondent No.1 completed her MBBS education

from Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad and went to United

States of America for super specialisation. At that time,

Respondent No.1 obtained bank loan from State Bank of

Hyderabad, Padmavathi Colony Branch, Mahaboobnagar for

funding her daughter's education by submitting the title deeds

of the suit schedule property as security. On account of

financial problems, respondent No.1 could not raise the

compound wall from ground level to upper level.

4. The respondent No. 1 got a borewell dug and also

obtained electricity connection to the suit schedule property.

The respondent No.1 was not residing locally and taking

advantage of the absence of respondent No.1, the appellants

herein and respondent Nos.2 to 6 made attempts to occupy

the suit schedule property. The respondent No.1 resisted such

attempts. However, the police did not take any action though

complaint was given. In the circumstances, suit for perpetual

injunction was filed to safeguard the possession of respondent

No.1 over the suit schedule property.

5. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein have

filed written statement denying the case of respondent No. 1

with respect to her ownership and possession over the suit

schedule property. Further, the appellants have expressed

shock and surprise over grant of occupancy rights certificate

by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in favour of

respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule property.

According to the appellants, the Revenue Divisional Officer

has issued occupancy rights certificate in favour of respondent

No.1 without putting the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6

on notice. Therefore, the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6

are contemplating to prefer an appeal challenging the issuance

of occupancy rights certificate in favour of respondent No.1.

6. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 claim that

respondent No.1 is not in possession of the suit schedule

property and that appellant No.8 and father of respondent

No.4 were not aware of suit in O.S.No.240 of 2002, which was

filed against them. Further, the appellants and respondent

Nos.2 to 6 contended that the total extent of land in

Sy.No.154/2 is Ac.9.33 Gts. without any subdivision

numbers. Said survey number also has large number of

pattadars and their names are not shown separately in the

revenue records. There is no basis for the boundaries shown

by respondent No.1 in the registered sale deed and the same

are imaginary. In fact, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2

to 6 are entitled for issuance of occupancy right certificate and

the decree in O.S.No.242 of 2002 is not binding on them. In

view of the foregoing, the appellants have sought dismissal of

the suit filed by respondent No.1.

7. The Trial Court upon perusing the pleadings of both the

parties had settled the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit land?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

8. The respondent No.1 got herself examined PWs 1 and 2

and exhibited Exs.A1 to A13 in support of her case. The

appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 got examined DWs.1

to 4 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B3.

9. The Trial Court examined the oral and documentary

evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and the appellants

herein for granting perpetual injunction in favour of

respondent No.1. The Trial Court examined the oral

documentary evidence in detail, more particularly, the cross-

examination of each of the witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 and

the DWs 1 to 4 for ascertaining the truth in the version

presented by respondent No.1 on one hand and the

appellants, respondent Nos.2 to 6 on the other hand.

10. The Trial Court particularly observed that there is

admission by DW1 that they never obtained Occupancy Rights

Certificate and he does not know whether respondent No.1

obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate. The Trial Court further

observed that there is no evidence in favour of the appellants

to show possession in their favour. Further, it is observed that

respondent No.1 has not only produced the Occupancy Rights

Certificate in her favour, but has also produced the registered

sale deed and documentary evidence in Exs.A11 to A13 to

demonstrate her possession. Except for denying the case of

respondent No.1, the appellants did not produce any evidence

in support of their case of ownership as legal heirs of the

original Inamdars or as possessors. It was observed that the

appellants have claimed their intention of preferring an appeal

against the ORC issued in favour of respondent No.1 under

Ex.A4, however, no evidence is produced to support such

contention. Further, it is observed that the pahanies marked

by the appellants under Exs.A11, A12 and A13 for the years

1990-91, 1991-92 and 2010-11 have shown respondent No.1

as pattadar of suit schedule property. Ironically, the Exs.B1 to

B3 Pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 also

show respondent No.1 as pattadar of the suit land. It is also

observed that as per all the pahanies, respondent No.1 is

shown to be the pattadar and occupant of a plot and not

agricultural land.

11. In view of the foregoing evidence, the Trial Court

decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 herein.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 7,

10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 21 have preferred First Appeal before

the learned Principal District Judge, Mahaboobnagar vide

A.S.No. 14 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed confirming the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court leading to filing of the

present Second Appeal.

12. In Second Appeal, the appellants have raised the

following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court committed any error while giving findings to the issues framed?

2. Whether on facts, the Plaintiff/Respondent ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title before seeking a relief of injunction against the Appellants, when the Appellants herein have specifically raised a cloud on the Plaintiff's/Respondent's title and the possession over the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable when there is a dispute with respect to the title of the property and when a Civil Revision Petition with respect to the grant of ORC in favour of the respondent is pending before the Hon'ble High Court?

4. Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent herein was able to make out a prima facie case and prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and thereby entitled for a relief of permanent injunction?

13. The appellants have raised the above mentioned

substantial questions of law to challenge the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court for granting

perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1. For any

Second Appeal to be entertained under Section 100 of CPC, as

per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India The

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v. V.

Hombegowda 1, there need to be substantial question of law

and not just question of law to be raised. Alternatively, as per

judgment of this Court in case between Syed Abdul Quddus

(2025) 5 SCC 442

v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2 and the judgment of the Apex Court in

Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 3, the judgments of both the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court have to be perverse on account

of giving the findings on the basis of evidence which is not

relevant or evidence which is not adduced.

14. The judgment and findings of the Trial Court have to be

examined in the backdrop of the guidelines issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to entertainment

of a Second Appeal by this Court under Section 100 of CPC.

With respect to substantial question of law at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, it

is seen that there is oral evidence of respondent No.1 (PW1)

herself reiterating the facts of the case i.e. background facts

leading to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction. In

addition, respondent No.1 got examined PW2 to prove her

possession. In response, the appellants and respondent Nos.2

to 6 have examined DW1 to DW4. The evidence of DW1 and

DW2 did not discredit the version presented by PW1 and PW2.

2024 SCC OnLine TS 186

(2007) 1 SCC 546

15. Coming to the documentary evidence, it is seen that

Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1984, Ex.A2 is

the true copy of proceedings issued by RDO, Mahabubnagar

vide File No.K/4474/1992, dated 28.01.1995, Ex.A3 is the

true copy of Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by the

Administrative Office, RDO, Mahabubnagar, dated

28.01.1995, Ex.A4 is the original title deed and Ex.A5 is the

original pattadar pass book. The aforementioned documents

are exhibited by respondent No.1 to prove her title to the suit

schedule property. It is seen that while respondent No.1 has

exhibited both the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1984

under Ex.A1 and the true copy of Occupancy Rights

Certificate under Ex.A3, there is no title deed in favour of the

appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6.

16. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are claiming to

be the legal heirs of the original Inamdars, but have not

produced any evidence in proof of their ownership or the

ownership of their forefathers over the suit schedule property.

The only documents produced by the appellants and

respondent Nos.2 to 6 are Ex.B1 to B3 certified copies of

pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. Said

pahanies, instead of supporting the case of the appellants and

respondents 2 to 6, support the case of respondent No.1 both

with respect to ownership as well as possession. The certified

copies of Pahanies marked under Exs.B1 to B3 by the

appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 clearly demonstrate that

the name of respondent No.1 is recorded as pattadar as well

as possessor of the suit schedule property. Further, the suit

schedule property as per pahanies marked under Exs.B1 to

B3 are not shown to be agricultural land but is shown to be

divided into plots. Thus, when the aspect of title is considered,

it is seen that the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 is

more credible compared to the evidence adduced by the

appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6.

17. With respect to the title of respondent No.1 as a

purchaser from the successor in interest of the original

Inamdar, the learned counsel for appellants has relied upon

judgment of this Court in case between Executive Officer,

Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District v.

Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others4, wherein, it is

held as below:

"3. While in B. Ramender Reddy' and others vs. District Collector, Hyderabad and others [1993 (2) An.W.R. 84 (DB)], the Division Bench held that the Inamdar has no right to alienate a land already vested in the State, in S.Veera Reddy and another v. Chetlapali Chandraiah and others [MANU/AP/0310/1994], another Division Bench held that such alienation is valid and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to secure ORC. This is the conflict of opinion that requires consideration and resolution.

4. The issue for consideration is whether a purchaser of inam land from Inamdar after 20.07.1955 would acquire right to claim ORC? Incidental issue for consideration would be whether the purchaser of inam land qualifies as a 'successor-in-interest' to Inamdar?

58. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under:

(2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor-in-interest and can not apply for ORC."

2023 (1) ALD 83 (TS) (FB)

18. The above judgment has discussion about the right of

Inamdar to alienate the land which was already vested in the

State and the issue of whether a purchaser of land i.e. Inam

land qualifies as successor in interest to the Inamdar. This

question after a detailed discussion was decided against such

purchaser i.e. it is held that purchaser of land from an

Inamdar is not a successor in interest and cannot apply for

ORC. By citing the aforementioned judgment, the counsel for

appellants sought to negate the case of respondent No.1 about

having title to the suit schedule property.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

respondent No.1's title is defective as she is claiming to have

purchased the land from their forefathers who are original

Inamdars.

20. Accepting for a moment that the title of respondent No.1

is defective, the appropriate course of remedy for the

appellants would be to seek declaration of title to the suit

schedule property. In the present suit, even in case the issue

of title and the defects thereof are raised, when respondent

No.1 produced Exs.A1 to A4 in proof of title and there is no

single document in favour of the appellants and respondent

Nos.1 to 6, the title of respondent No.1 cannot be looked into

to deny her the relief of perpetual injunction.

21. Now coming to the aspect of proof of possession,

respondent No.1 has produced Ex.A6-Certified copy of

judgment and decree in O.S.No.240 of 2002 on the file of the

Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, Ex.A5-Original Pattadar

pass book, Ex.A7-Grampanchayath permission along with

approved plan No.86, dated 10.07.2006 issued by Executive

Officer, Yenugonda, Ex.A8-Bank Voucher, Ex.A9-

Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A10-Encumbrance Certificate

and Exs.A11 to A13 Pahanies for the years 1990-91, 1991-92,

2010-11. The Ex.A5 is meant for proving that on the basis of

the registered sale deed/Ex.A1 and the occupancy rights

certificate/Ex.A3, the Revenue Authorities have issued

pattadar passbook for the suit schedule property in favour of

respondent No.1. The Ex.A6 proves that respondent No.1

herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction when one of the

appellants' forefather has interfered with the suit schedule

property and that the suit was decreed in favour finding her to

be in possession of the suit schedule property.

22. Further Ex.A7-Grampanchayath permission shows that

the Grampanchayath has given her permission for

construction in the suit schedule property. The Bank voucher-

Ex.A8 and Encumbrance certificates/Exs.A9 and A10 show

the suit transaction which is in favour of respondent No.1 and

the Exs.A11 to A13 Pahanis for the years 1990-91, 1991-92,

2010-11 show the name of respondent No.1 as both patadar

as well as possessor. In addition, as already discussed, Exs.B1

to B3 Pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10

also show the name of respondent No.1 as pattadar as well as

possessor. Thus, the entire documentary evidence produced

both by respondent No.1 as well as appellants and respondent

Nos.2 to 6 go to show that the name of respondent No.1 is

registered as the possessor of the suit schedule property.

23. In the face of the documentary evidence adduced by

both the parties, it is not to be lost sight of that the appellants

herein are merely challenging the possession of respondent

No.1, but have not produced credible evidence in support of

their case of being in possession. In case the appellants and

respondent Nos.2 to 6 are in possession of the property, then

it is for them to produce evidence to prove the same. While so,

the evidence produced in the form of Exs.B1 to B3 is nothing

but a denial of their own case and support to the case of

respondent No.1.

24. In view of the documentary evidence which supports the

case of respondent No.1 of having title as well as possession,

the Trial Court has decreed the suit with costs in favour of

respondent No.1. When the appellants carried the matter in

appeal to the First Appellate Court vide A.S.No.14 of 2023,

said Court while discussing the evidence adduced by both the

parties has confirmed the findings given by the Trial Court

with respect to title and the possession of respondent No.1

over the suit schedule property and dismissed the appeal, i.e.

there is no substance in the substantial questions of law at

Sl.Nos.1 to 3.

25. When two Courts have given a factual finding holding

that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule

property, it is not open before this Court in a Second Appeal to

give any finding contrary to the factual finding given by both

the courts i.e. the First Appellate Court and the Trial court. In

fact, when the documentary evidence discussed by the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court is examined, there is

nothing to come to a finding that the findings of said courts

are based on considering irrelevant evidence or ignoring

relevant evidence. Rather, the findings of both the courts are

on the basis of the documents exhibited by both the parties

and sound appreciation of the entries made therein, i.e. the

substantial question of law at Sl.No.4 has no basis and cannot

come to the aid of appellants for entertaining a Second Appeal.

26. Once the possession of the property is found to be in

favour of respondent No.1, in a suit for perpetual injunction,

the title cannot be examined. In the present Second Appeal,

the singular issue that is emphasised vehemently is the defect

in title of respondent No.1. However, in a suit for perpetual

injunction, when prima facie case of possession is proven and

interference is proven, the balance of convenience is held to be

in favour of the possessor and thus, perpetual injunction has

to be granted. In the instant case, since possession of suit

schedule property was found to be in favour of respondent

No.1, perpetual injunction was granted. Assuming for a

moment, there is any defect in the title of respondent No.1, the

same cannot be examined in the suit filed by her seeking

perpetual injunction. The proper course available to the

appellants would be to challenge the title of respondent No.1

by filing a suit for declaration. Without taking such a

recourse, denying her title without challenging the ORC issued

in favour of respondent No.1 would be of no avail. Until the

ORC granted in favour of respondent No.1 and the registered

sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 under Ex.A1

are set aside, the title of respondent No.1 cannot be

challenged. Hence, on this count too, the appellants have no

case to challenge the findings given by the Trial Court and

First Appellate Court in favour of respondent No.1.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there are no merits in the case of

appellants for entertaining a Second Appeal under Section 100

of CPC and the same is liable to be dismissed.

28. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the

stage of admission. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Second

Appeal, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J

Date: 02.12.2025 GVL

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

S.A.No.479 OF 2025

Date: 02.12.2025

GVL