Telangana High Court
Dumbala Madhukar Reddy vs Yema Rajamma on 17 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.155 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree,
dated 22.10.2024, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Medak in A.S.No.14 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the
judgment and decree, dated 23.03.2018, passed by the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel in O.S.No.147 of 2010 was confirmed.
2. Heard Smt. Anita Kiran, learned counsel representing, Sri
Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant on record.
3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 6
herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the suit. For convenience,
hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are 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 a suit for perpetual
injunction against the defendants, in respect of land, i.e., Ac.0.10 ½
gts each in Survey Nos.104/A/1 and 104/A/2, Ac.0.21 gts in Survey
No.104/Le, Acs.0.07 gts each in Survey Nos.104/E, 104/2 and 104/2,
2 LNA, J
total admeasuring to Ac.1.23 gts situated at Venkatapur Agraharam
village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as
suit scheduled property).
5. In the plaint, it is averred that; the plaintiff purchased the suit
scheduled property along with other properties from original owners
vide registered document No.1198 of 2010 dated 03.09.2010 and was
in possession; that the defendants without having any manner of right
are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore,
the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.
6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and defendant Nos.1, 3,
4 and 6 adopted the same. It is averred that the defendant No.1 is
bonafide purchaser of the land in Survey No.104 to an extent of
Ac.2.04 gts., the suit schedule property forms part and parcel of the
said land; that defendants purchased the same from original owners
vide simple sale deed dated 29.02.1987 and defendant No.1's name
was also mutated in the revenue records and further pattadar
passbook and title deed were issued in her favour and since then she
is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the suit filed by
the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3 LNA, J
7. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court
framed the following issues for trial:-
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual
injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule
property as prayed for?
ii) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1
and his vendor, Yema Anjaneyulu, was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1
to A13 were marked. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.2 was
examined as DW1, Domala Pochaiah and Vaddepally Pentaiah are
examined as DW2 and DW3 respectively and Exs.B1 to B6 were
marked.
9. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and
documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial
Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018.
10. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-
18. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the
proceeding No. 8/391/2010 not pertaining to defendants 13-B
proceedings and he relied Ex. A13 which is issued by Deputy
Tahsildar, Toopran showing 390 is a inward number titling
recommendation of Koneru Rangarao Land Committee
4 LNA, J
implementation No. 10.3 regarding. Ex. A12 is the memo issued
by Deputy Tahsildar endorsing no file is available vide File No.
B/391/2010, dt: 15-4-2010 is also no useful to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is not supposed to rely on the weakness of the
defendants, he must stand on his own legs. However there is
no such pleading either from plaintiff or defendants. The
plaintiff picked such number on going through the pahanies
only. Since there is no dispute with regard to original
ownership as such Ex.A4 to A11 are no useful. Though Ex.A4
to A11 showing the names of original pattedars names as
pattedars and possessors, the suit schedule property as
pleaded by the plaintiff corresponding to Ex.A1 and A2 are not
tallying exclusively. Therefore, the original ownership of
original pattedars may not helpful to the plaintiff.
21. On going through the above discussion, I hold that
the plaintiff utterly failed to establish his exclusive possession
over the suit schedule property as on the date of filling of the
suit and the cause of action that the defendants without having
any right or interest tried to Interfere into the suit schedule
property. Since the defendant is also able to establish they are
having interest through simple sale deed. Hence, I hold that
there is a cloud over the title and possession in respect of the
suit schedule property. Accordingly the Issue No.1 is answered
against the plaintiff.
11. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.03.2018, the plaintiff
preferred appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District
Judge, Medak. 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 judgment and
decree, dated 22.10.2024.
12. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as under:-
5 LNA, J
23. This is a suit for mere injunction to protect the possession d
plaintiff over the property and as such the burden is upon the
plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property
as on the date of filing of the suit. There is no doubt that title
follows possession and there are registered sale deeds relied
upon by the plaintiff. However, it is also evident that prior to
2010 i.e. prior to the sale deed of plaintiff under Ex.A2. the
plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Though Ex.A1 was a registered sale deed in favour of
Anjaneyulu, it was also of the year 2009 and his name was
not reflected at any place in the revenue records being in
possession of any part of suit property.
24. The defendant claimed possession over entire suit schedule
property from 1987 onwards and produced Ex. B2 proceedings
i.e. 13-B certificate dated 15.04.2010. The orders of Revenue
Divisional Officer, Siddipet under Ex.B6 shows that there was
no observation that Ex.B2 Proceedings have been disputed for
its genunity during the enquiry by Revenue Divisional Officer.
In these circumstances, it is clear that Ex. B2 proceedings are
prior to the registered sale deed of plaintiff.
25. Thus there is a cloud over the title and other rights of
plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also of his
vendors, by the date of his sale deed. Except registered
document there is no other cogent evidence in favour of plaintiff
to prove that the plaintiff has been inducted into possession of
plaint schedule property.
26. The suit was filed by plaintiff on 16.11.2010 within a very
short period of purchase of property by him. As such the
burden is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove that he has been in
possession over the suit schedule property from the date of his
purchase till filing of the suit. He can not rely upon weakness if
any in the case of the defendants.
27. The circumstances as discussed above clearly reveals that
there is cloud over passing of valid title to the plaintiff. When
the passing of valid title is not proved, the handing over
possession of property to plaintiff cannot be presumed. As
such, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the
suit schedule property. A suit for mere injunction in such
6 LNA, J
circumstances, is not maintainable in view of cloud Judgment
in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy - (2008) 4 SCC, 594,
in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "A cloud is said to
raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his
title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third
party over it, is made or shown".
13. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2024
the present second Appeal is filed.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
trial Court as well as the first appellate Court committed error in
dismissing the suit on erroneous findings. He further submitted
that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, without
properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, has come to perverse finding. He further submitted that
though the documents placed on record by the defendants are
unregistered and inadmissible, both the Courts have given
credence to the said document and erroneously dismissed the
suit. He finally prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned orders.
15. Perusal of the record would disclose that, the plaintiff filed
suit for injunction simplicitor and both Courts have come to a
conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his possession
7 LNA, J
over the suit scheduled property. Both the Courts have held
that the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own merits and
cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. The First
Appellate Court specifically held that there is cloud over the title
of plaintiff, therefore suit for injunction simplicitor is not
maintainable in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy 1. The First
Appellate Court further observed that prior to 2010 the plaintiff
was not in possession of the suit scheduled property and except
registered document, there is no other cogent evidence in favour
of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff has been inducted into
possession of plaint schedule property. Therefore, the contention
of the appellant that the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court is not a reasoned order is untenable and thus, it does not
require interference by this Court.
16. 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
1 (2008) 4 SCC 594
8 LNA, J
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.
17. 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.
18. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 2, 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.
19. 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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
9 LNA, J
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.
20. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
17th June, 2025
PSW
