Telangana High Court
Smt. Ayesha Siddiqua vs Gamilipuram Yadaiah on 6 January, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
SECOND APPEAL No.514 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. G. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff
assailing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 passed in
A.S.No.27 of 2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Siddipet, whereby the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2023
passed in O.S.No.386 of 2022 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajwel, has been confirmed.
3. The suit was filed seeking declaration over the plaint 'A'
schedule property, i.e., Ac.1-04 Guntas in Survey No.56/11,
situated at Majeedpally Village of Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District;
and perpetual injunction over the suit 'B' schedule property, i.e.,
Ac.1-15 Guntas in Survey No.61, situated at Majeedpally Village of
Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District. The appellant/plaintiff case in
brief is that the revenue authority had issued pattedar
passbook/Ex.A1 for both the suit schedules but in the e-pattedar
passbook/Ex.A2 only plaint 'B' schedule property was shown.
Further clarified that there is no dispute in regard to Ac.0-02
Guntas in 'A' schedule property, as such, the extent of the
schedule 'A' property is shown as Ac.1-04 Guntas. However, as the
defendants are interfering with the possession filed the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that
though there was no contest from the defendants, the suit was
dismissed without proper appreciation of the materials.
Hence, prayed for intervention.
4. I have perused the material on record.
5. The evidentiary rule prescribes that the burden of proof of
asserted facts lies with the party who would fail if no evidence at all
were given on either side. Thus the burden would be on the plaintiff
to prove the suit claim, irrespective of the defendant's contest.
In the present suit, the specific claim of the plaintiff is that plaint
'A' and 'B' schedule properties belong to her. However, except
the revenue record, no other document has been placed.
Pertinently, the entries in Ex.A1 have shown that the property has
been purchased by the plaintiff. For the reasons best known to the
plaintiff, no document has been placed proving that foundational
facts. Further, it is also well settled that the revenue record does
not confer any title at the best presumption. In the given set of
evidence placed by the plaintiff, the conclusions drawn by the trial
and appellate Courts in regard to suit claim is found proper and
justified.
6. In this view, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
tenable ground is made out, much less any substantial question of
law, for admission and in the absence of merit, the Second Appeal
is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
DATE: 06.01.2025
HFM
