Ravulkole Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Gruhalaxmi
2025 Latest Caselaw 2323 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ravulkole Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Gruhalaxmi on 19 February, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                 SECOND APPEAL No.90 of 2024
JUDGMENT:

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment

and decree, dated 13.06.2023, passed by the Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.28 of 2020, whereunder and

whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed by the

VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in

O.S.No.2929 of 2016 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the

defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are

referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

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

Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that his

father by name Kannaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of

the suit schedule property having acquired the same by way of a

registered sale deed bearing document No.130/1951, dated

16.04.1952; that his father died on 26.04.1991; that he constructed

a house in part of the property and a part of the remaining land was

sold to third parties; that he, being a Ganesh devotee, constructed a

Mandapam in 137 square yards and had been erecting Ganesh idol

LNA, J

every year for the past 30 years; that the defendants with an evil

intention to grab the mandapam land, by using political influence,

got a Panchayat convened on 10.10.2016, however, in the said

panchayat, the defendants promised that they will not interfere with

the possession of the plaintiff over the said Mandapam; that when

defendants tried to grab the property by creating fabricated and

fictitious documents, he resisted the said illegal acts; and that on

30.10.2016, the defendants came to the suit schedule property and

tried to grab the same and as such, he filed the suit for perpetual

injunction against the defendants.

4. The defendants filed their written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint and submitted that one A.Sathaiah,

A.Narayana and A.M.Krishna, who are brothers and constitute a

joint family, have purchased the plot in two spells to an extent of

360 square yards from the father of the plaintiff; that ever since the

said purchase, they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment

without any interruption; that due to growth in the family, all the

three brothers lived separately in different places; that before

construction of a house in the land, Sathaiah disposed of 200

square yards to third parties and a house was constructed in the

LNA, J

remaining extent of 170 square yards; that the defendants leased

out the plot of 170 square yards bearing House No.9-1-224/5/A to

a tenant; that Sathaiah died issueless leaving behind his wife and

the defendants as his legal heirs to the suit schedule property; that

in the year 2015, the defendants divided the suit schedule property

into three equal shares; and that the plaintiff filed a case with false

averments and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the

trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is able to prove the alleged interference of the defendants?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PW1

and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,

DW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked.

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

documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the

LNA, J

trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated

18.10.2019. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-

"In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has to establish lawful possession as in the date of filing of the suit and cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendants' case. The plaintiffs must establish his own case on the strength of his own title and other relevant documents to get the relief of injunction Here, the defendants denied the rights and title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Admittedly no legal documents produced by the plaintiff to prove that he is in the possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The suit is one for granting of perpetual injunction, the only significance is possession, of course, the title will also be looked into after the possession only. Here, the case on hand, the defendants disputed the title of plaintiff basing on the documentary evidence. That in the case on hand, the plaintiff failed to produce any iota of documentary evidence that he is in lawful possession of schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, in the light of discussion, the plaintiff miserably failed to establish the possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. When the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, the question of alleged interference by the defendants does not arise Accordingly, issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided negative to the plaintiff and in favour of defendants."

LNA, J

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

finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material

available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment

dated 13.06.2023, thereby, confirming the judgment of the trial

Court.

9. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as

hereunder:-

"The above evidence of the appellant and PW2 does not inspire confidence as there are no details about the boundaries of huge extent of 5929 square yards of land, the extent of 370 square yards of land sold to the respondents, the partition of the remaining extent of 4900 square yards of land and which part of 170 square yards of land is used for installing the stage for Ganesh idol for celebrating the festival. There is no evidence of possession of the appellant over the suit schedule property, neither documentary nor oral, except the self serving evidence of the appellant."

9.1. The first Appellate Court further observed as hereunder:-

"The lacunae in the case of the respondents cannot be of aid to the appellant. The appellant has no stand and fall on the strength of his own case. There is complete failure on the part of the appellant to show that the possession over the suit schedule property in the form of

LNA, J

both oral and documentary evidence. Further, according to the appellant, he is in possession of the suit schedule property as he got a temporary stage erected for installing Ganesh Idol. While so, it is the case of the respondents that the stage for Ganesh idol is erected with their permission. Further, there is a reference to panchayat being held by the elders. With the contradicting claims of the resolution of the said panchayat, the appellant should have examined one of the panchayat elders for eliciting the truth of the versions presented by the rival parties in whose favour the panchayat had passed a resolution. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence i.e., evidence as to possession, evidence as to interference and evidence as to irreparable loss, the appellant would not be entitled to grant of perpetual injunction. The reason stated by the appellant for being in possession is erection of a stage for installing Ganesh idol. Said stage would be in existence only for a period of 11 to 15 days in a year. Therefore, the temporary stage has to be pulled down."

10. Heard Sri T.Sanjay Rao, learned counsel for the appellant

and Sri V.Krishna Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondents.

Perused the entire material available on record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Courts

below failed to take into consideration Exs.A-1 to A-4 filed by the

appellant to prove his case, which shows that the appellant's father

LNA, J

was owner of an extent of 5929 square yards including the suit

schedule property and also other unsold plots and open land; that

the Courts below failed to consider the admissions made by D.W-1

that Ex.B-1 does not contain the boundaries of 370 square yards

claimed by the defendants; and that the Courts below failed to look

into the plea of the defendants in their written statement about the

alienation of 200 square yards and construction of house over the

remaining 170 square yards, which falsifies their case and supports

the case of the appellant. Hence, he prayed to allow the Second

Appeal.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants

contended that the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on

record, rightly dismissed the suit and the first Appellate Court, on

re-appreciation of the evidence, has rightly confirmed the judgment

and decree passed by the trial Court.

13. 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.

LNA, J

14. It is well settled principle that in a suit for injunction, the

plaintiff has to prove his prima facie possession over the suit

schedule property. In the instant case, perusal of record discloses

that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit

schedule property by way of oral and documentary evidence. The

suit of the plaintiff shall stand or fall on its own merits and

weakness of the defendants cannot be ground or factor for allowing

the suit. In the present case, the trial Court as well as first appellate

Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, concurrently held

that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit

schedule property.

15. 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 findings on facts

arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper

appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

16. 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

(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546

LNA, J

Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only

where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for

consideration.

17. Having considered the entire material available on record

and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court

finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said

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.

18. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Date:19.02.2025 dr