Manne Latha vs Chepuri Harish Kumar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4166 Tel

Telangana High Court

Manne Latha vs Chepuri Harish Kumar on 23 June, 2025

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  SECOND APPEAL NO.146 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and

decree dated 02.12.2024 in A.S.No.90 of 2022 passed by the Principal

District Judge, Kamareddy, confirming the judgment and decree

dated 15.11.2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge, Kamareddy, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.1 and the

respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, the

parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

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

Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of

2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, for declaration of

title and perpetual injunction contending that the plaintiff No.1 was

the owner and possessor of the open plot admeasuring 117.7 square

yards in Sy.No.96/2 situated at Lingapur Grama Panchayat,

Kamareddy (hereinafter referred to as 'suit plot') having purchased

the same from one Chikoti Rajesham through a registered sale deed

vide document No.2141/2001 dated 15.06.2001 for a sale

consideration of Rs.12,000/-; that the vendor of the plaintiff No.1

purchased the suit plot from Linga Veerasham vide document

No.2704/1985 dated 10.07.1985; that said Linga Veerasham

purchased the suit plot from the defendant No.2-Kasarla Ramulu

through a registered sale deed vide document No.1722/1984 dated

19.06.1984 and the defendant No.2 is the father of defendant No.1;

that plaintiff No.1 came to know that defendant No.2 has created and

fabricated a gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.1 with

an intention to grab the suit plot; that defendants came to the suit

plot on 22.01.2014 and tried to remove the boundary stones and the

plaintiffs resisted them with the help of neighbours. Hence, the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died and his

legal representatives i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record.

5. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments

made in the plaint and further averred that the suit plot is the part of

ancestral property of the defendant No.2 and the same was made

into house site plots; that out of love and affection, defendant No.2

executed a gift deed dated 13.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.1 in

respect of Southern side of half portion of open plot No.8 and since

then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the

plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit plot and prayed to dismiss

the suit.

6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and averred that

defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit plot by virtue of gift deed

dated 13.12.2011 executed by the defendant No.2; that the suit is

barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit plot?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction ?

3) To what relief ?

On 24.08.2019 after hearing the parties, the following

additional issues were framed.

1) Whether the defendant no.2 executed registered sale deed Doc.No.1722/1984 dated 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veerasham who in turn sold the same to plaintiff's vendor

Chekoti Rajesham s/o. Balaiah vide registered sale deed Doc.No.2704/1985 dated 10.07.1985 ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as owner of the suit schedule land ?

3) Whether the defendant No.2 executed the gift deed validly in favour of the defendant No.1 during the subsisting of the registered sale deed and the said gift deed Doc.No.7229/2011 dated 12.12.2011 validly confer the title on the defendant No.2 ?

8. During the trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 3 were

examined, Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of defendants,

DWs.1 to 5 were marked and Ex.B1 to B6 were marked.

9. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary

evidence and the contentions of both the parties, vide judgment dated

15.11.2022 decreed the suit with the following observations:

" The documentary evidence of the plaintiffs clearly established that the defendant No.2 executed registered sale deed Doc.No.1722/1984 dated 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veeresham. Ex.A2-regsitered sale deed clearly established that the said Linga Veeresham sold the suit schedule plot to Chekoti Rajesham on 10.07.1985; the plaintiff No.1 purchased the same on 14.05.2001 vide Doc.No.2141/2001 under Ex.A1. The defendant No.2 failed to establish that he did not execute Ex.A3, the suit schedule property is open plot, there is no house number, electricity connection and other records, when a property is open plot relevant documents as to title or sale deeds in the present case Exs.A1 to A3 documents are the sale

deeds, therefore the title of the plaintiffs is proved; the defendants failed to disprove the claim of the plaintiffs; accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiffs holding that the plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are owners.

The defendant No.1 claiming that Exs.B1 dated 12.12.2011 she became owner of the half portion of plot No.8, an extent of 92 sq.yards. Exs.A1 to A3 documents are executed much prior to Ex.B1 gift deed. In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs are held as owners of the suit schedule plot, once there is a registered document in favour of the plaintiff during the subsistence of the register documents Ex.B1-gift deed not confers any title on the defendant No.1.

Gift of a immovable property is covered by Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, according to which, a donor of a property has to be the owner of the property as on the date of execution of gift deed, there must be valid acceptance of the gift. In the present case, the donor is father, done is daughter. The plaintiffs are claiming title by virtue of sale deed from the donor and they established their ownership, there is no document to show possession of defendant no.1, therefore the defendant No.2 is not having right to execute Ex.B1 in favour of defendant no.1, accordingly it will not confer any title on the defendant No.1.

The plaintiffs in the present case are found to be owners of the suit schedule plot, in view of the defence of the defendants, they claimed title over the suit schedule property, as such, there is interfere to the possession of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property by the defendants, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction to protect their possession from interference the defendants.

In view of my findings in issue No.1 and 2 and additional issue No.1 to 3, the plaintiffs are declared as owners of the suit schedule plot, the defendants failed to prove their case. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of perpetual injunction."

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022, the

defendant No.1 preferred the appeal in A.S.No.90 of 2022 before the

Principal District Judge, Kamareddy (first Appellate Court).

11. The first Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, re-

appreciated the entire evidence and the material available on record

and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 02.12.2024 with the

following observations:

"There is serious dispute by defendants in respect of boundaries of suit plot mentioned in plaint. Boundaries mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3 and plaint are tallying with each other. Because of afflux of time, there is some change in respect of boundaries except on Western side, which is 12 feet road, in respect of which, P.W.1 gave explanation in his evidence. Major portion of suit plot is being claimed by defendant No.1 as per property. In those circumstances, naturally there will be certain variation in respect of boundaries. The pleadings and evidence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 categorically show that defendantNo.1 is claiming 06 square yards in Sy.No.96/2 of Lingapoor village, forming part of suit plot of plaintiff no.1. As already stated, Ex.B1 is a sham and nominal document. that apart, Ex.A3 is 30 years old document under which defendant no.2 sold out suit plot to Linga Veeresham way back on 19.06.1984. Defendant No.2 has no authority to execute Ex.B1 in respect of the same plot, which was already sold by him on 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veerasham.

The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of suit plot by virtue of Exs.A1 to A3 and after his death, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 became the owners and possessors of suit plot. I also hold that Ex.B1 is a sham and nominal document brought into existence by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with each other to defeat the legal rights of plaintiff No.1. ...

The fact that defendant Nos.1 and 2 created Ex.B1-gift deed and claiming the suit plot speaks volumes about the interference caused by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Unless defendants and their men are restrained by way of perpetual injunction, it will be difficult for plaintiffs to protect their lawful possession over suit plot. I hold that plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

Court has carefully perused the judgment and decree under appeal. Though defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate appeals, the grounds taken by them are one and the same, which are mentioned, in brief, in para No.12 of this judgment. All the grounds taken by defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been dealt with on point Nos.1 and 2 and held them to be untenable. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, in proper perspective and reached correct conclusion and rightly decreed the suit."

12. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2024 in

A.S.No.90 of 2022, the present Appeal is filed.

13. Heard Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel appearing

for appellant. Perused the record.

14. Learned counsel for appellant had contended that the

judgment and decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the first

Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence; that the first

Appellate Court and trial Court failed to appreciate that the

defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit plot

by virtue of registered gift settlement deed under Ex.B1; that first

Appellate Court as well as the trial Court come to erroneous

conclusion that Exs.A1 to A3 were executed much prior to Ex.B1-gift

deed and that Ex.B1 will not confer any title and that defendants

failed to prove their case; that the first Appellate Court and trial

Court erroneously passed the judgment and decree under the appeal

on presumptions, assumptions without appreciating the

documentary evidence placed on record by the defendants and

therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.

15. Perusal of the record would disclose that the trial Court as well

as first Appellate Court specifically observed that plaintiff No.1 is the

absolute owner and possessor of suit plot by virtue of Exs.A1 to A3-

registered sale deeds and after death of plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2

to 4 became the owners and possessors of the same; that Ex.B1 is a

sham and nominal document brought into existence by defendants in

collusion with each other; that Exs.A1 to A3 are executed much

prior to Ex.B1-gift deed and that Ex.A3 is 30 years old document

under which defendant No.2 sold out the suit plot to Linga

Veeresham way back on 19.06.1984 and therefore, defendant No.2

has no authority to execute Ex.B1 in respect of the same plot, which

was already sold by him under Ex.A3. Therefore, the trial Court

decreed the suit and the same was upheld by the first appellate

Court.

16. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the appellant/defendant No.1 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.

17. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Apex

Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this

Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings on facts arrived

at by the Courts below, which are based on proper appreciation of

the oral and documentary evidence on record.

18. 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 Section 100

C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial

question of law is raised and fell for consideration.

(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546

19. Having considered the entire material available on record and

the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate

Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference

with the said concurrent 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. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 23.06.2025 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

SECOND APPEAL NO.146 OF 2025 Date: 23.06.2025 kkm