Telangana High Court
M/S. Boodevi Builders Limited. vs Gurrampally Papaiah on 12 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.195 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
The Second Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 28.01.2025 in A.S.No.85 of 2018 on
the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad wherein and
whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2017 in
O.S.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar was confirmed.
2. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the
appellant. Perused the record.
3. The appellant herein is plaintiff, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are
defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the
parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
4. The brief facts of the case, which led to the filing of the
present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff filed Suit vide
O.S.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar for Perpetual
Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates
etc., from interfering with the lawful possession of plaintiff over
the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the land
admeasuring Acs.8.02 gts, bearing Survey No.25, situated at
Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, having purchased
the same from Mr.M.V.Subba Rao vide Registered Sale Deed
bearing document No.1792/2000, dated 17.07.2000. Since then,
the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
It is further averred that on 10.03.2006 and 15.03.2006, the
defendants in collusion with revenue authorities got entered their
names in possession column of pahanies and are trying to
interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the Suit.
5. The Suit against defendant No.1 abated and defendant
Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte.
6. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and contended that
Mr.M.V.Subba Rao is not the owner of the suit schedule property
and the same was declared by the Land Ceiling Tribunal,
Hyderabad in C.C.No.337/W/75 and the same was confirmed by
the High Court vide order dated 28.06.1979 in C.R.P.No.6795.
Therefore, the vendor of plaintiff has no manner of right to
alienate the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff misrepresented
and suppressed the real facts before the Court. Defendant No.4 is
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having
purchased the same from defendant Nos.1 to 3 under the
registered sale deed document bearing No.767 of 2008 dated
20.01.2008. He further stated that his vendors are in possession
of the property since, 1950 onwards.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
the following issues for trial:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as
prayed for ?
3) To what relief ?
8. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as
PW1 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of defendants
DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked.
9. After full-fledged trial, on considering the oral and
documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties,
the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs.
10. The trial Court in its judgment categorically observed as
hereunder:-
(6) As seen from the entire documents Ex.B1 to B29
the name of the defendant No.4 reflected as Pattedar
and possessor since 2008-09 and prior to that his
vendors names were recorded in possessor column as
per Pahanis filed by the plaintiff also. The plaintiff
failed to file single document to establish their
possession over the suit schedule property. Moreover
in the cross-examination PW1 admitted that as on the
date of filing of the suit they did not file any document
to show their possession over the suit schedule
property and as on today he did not file any suit
before any court for cancellation of the sale deed of
defendant No.8. So as per the evidence of plaintiff he
is not in possession. The defendant is in possession
over the suit schedule property. In this case the
interested point is that the legal heirs of Subba Rao
represented by GPA holder and Smt Prameela
executed GPA in favour of Y.Ramchandra Reddy and
the said Ramachandra Reddy had executed sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff company in the capacity of
GPA holder of sons of M.V.Subba Rao, but the plaintiff
failed to file that unregistered document dated
30.08.1974.
(9) In this case the suit schedule property is vacant
site. The Protected Tenant names were recorded in
possessor column. In the cross-examination also PW1
admitted that no document was filed to establish his
possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Such
presumption in favour of the plaintiff was rebutted by
the defendant only taking the plea of the possession
by transfer. In this aspect also the plaintiff failed to
establish their possession over the suit schedule
property. In this case from the beginning there is a
dispute in respect of the title of the suit schedule
property. This is a suit for injunction simplicitor and
complicated question of title not to be gone into,
person not having title being in settled possession of
property on date of suit are also entitled to file a suit
for injunction. In this case though the plaintiff is
having knowledge about the title dispute, but he filed
a suit for injunction. So rights and title of the
individuals cannot be adjudicated in a suit for
injunction.
11. By observing as hereinabove, the trial Court opined that
there is no proper, sufficient and acceptable evidence to prove the
contentions of the plaintiff.
12. 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 confirming the
judgment passed by the trial Court.
13. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as
hereunder:-
22. The documents clearly show that D4 name
was recorded in the revenue record as pattedar and
in this case the plaintiff not filed single document to
prove plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule
property as on the date of filing of the suit, more over
PW.1 was also admitted the same in the cross
examination. In this case the defendants denying the
title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
23. More over, it appears that the plaintiff
company purchased the suit schedule property basing
on the sale certificate without verifying the possession
of his vendor over the suit schedule property as on the
date of his purchase. Moreover the plaintiff also filed
to file the alleged sale deed of L.Prameela.
25. Therefore, the defendant No.4 in the written
statement categorically denied the title of the plaintiff,
hence as per the above said judgment the plaintiff
ought to have file suit for declaration but not simple
suit for injunction, hence on that ground also the suit
is not maintainable and plaintiff also failed to prove
possession over the suit schedule property as on the
date of filing of the suit. This court opines that the trial
court properly appreciated the facts and applied the
law and in the appeal there is no need to interfere
findings of the trial Court.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits
that both the Courts misinterpreted the documents placed
on record and have come to an erroneous conclusion that
the appellant failed to prove his possession. Ex A4 and
Ex.B11 to Ex.B-14 pahanies show the possession of the
appellant/plaintiff over the property and also its title.
Therefore, the said finding of both the Courts is perverse
and amounts to non-appreciation of evidence placed on
record.
15. He further submits that both the Courts have
committed error in observing that Ex B1 is void and the
transactions are contrary to the provisions of the Telangana
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the
principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
reported in Anthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead)
By Lrs & Ors 1. He further states that the trial Court
erroneously observed that the plaintiff ought to have filed
the Suit for Declaration of Title by wrongly relying upon
Exs.B-13, 14 to 23 and finally prayed to allow the Appeal.
16. A perusal of the record discloses that both the Courts
have concurrently held that the appellant is tracing his title
through unregistered document dated 30.08.1974,
however, the same is not placed on record. Both the Courts
also observed that in the pahanies filed by the plaintiff as
well as defendant No.4, the name of defendant No.4 is
recorded as 'Possessor', which is evident from Exs.B1 to
B29, whereas the plaintiff failed to adduce a single
AIR 2008 SC 2033
document evidencing its possession over the suit schedule
property. Both the Courts have specifically observed that
there is a dispute with regard to title of suit schedule
property and therefore, the appellant ought to have filed
suit for declaration and not a suit for Injunction Simplicitor
in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs &
Ors 2.
17. In considered opinion of this Court, learned counsel
for the appellant has 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.
18. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033
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.
19. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 3, 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 where a substantial question of law is
raised and falls for consideration.
20. Having considered the entire material available on
record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well
as 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 appellants are factual in nature and no question of law,
much less a substantial question of law arises, for
consideration in this Second Appeal.
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
21. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:12.06.2025
ESP
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:12.06.2025
ESP
