Telangana High Court
Pulicheri Ramulu vs Bollu Sammi Reddy on 26 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.259 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
Judgment and Decree, dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Principal
District Judge, Hanumakonda in AS.No.80 of 2022, whereunder
and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018 passed by
the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.24 of
2010, was confirmed.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent
herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the
parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to
filing of the present Second Appeal, is that the plaintiff is the
owner and possessor of the house plot bearing No.36 (part) out of
Survey No.1066, situated at Srinivasa Nagar, Balasamudram,
Hanamkonda, Warangal District (herein after referred to as 'suit
schedule property') having purchased the same under an agreement
of sale dated 20.04.1994 from his vendor Nellutla Kamala Devi.
The said Nellutla Kamala Devi purchased the suit schedule
property from D.Narsimha Swamy under registered Sale Deed vide
LNA, J
document No.226/1966 on 31.01.1966. The plaintiff commenced
construction of residential house in the year 1998, however, he
could not complete the construction due to paucity of funds.
Subsequently, the plaintiff again resumed construction of the house
on 15.01.2010, and while the work was in progress, the defendant
entered the suit schedule property, caused obstruction and
interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The
defendant again entered the suit schedule property on 17.01.2010,
and caused further obstruction and interfered with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the subject property.
Aggrieved by the acts of the defendant, plaintiff filed the suit for
permanent injunction.
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the ownership
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He pleaded
ignorance of the transaction through which the vendor of the
plaintiff i.e. N.Kamala Devi had purchased property from
D.Narsimha Swamy. He contended that the documents relied upon
by the plaintiff were false, fabricated and that N.Kamala Devi
never executed any agreement of sale, as she does not know how to
sign, so she uses her thumb impression as a substitute for a
LNA, J
signature. Having denied all the averments in the plaint, the
defendant contended that one G.Sada Shiva Reddy filed suit vide
OS.No.146 of 1982 on 28.02.1982, for specific performance of an
agreement of sale against N.Kamala Devi in respect of house plot
admeasuring 356 Sq.yards and the subject suit schedule property
also forms part and parcel of it, situated at Srinivasanagar,
Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The said suit was
dismissed and against the dismissal of the said suit an appeal was
preferred vide AS.No.20 of 1989 which was ended in compromise
and the terms of compromise were recorded on 26.09.1994 before
the District Court, Warangal, wherein N.Kamala Devi put her
thumb impression. As per the terms of the said compromise, the
entire area of plot No.36, admeasuring 356 Sq.Yards was delivered
to G.Sadashiva Reddy on 25.02.1982. It was further contended that
one G.Raji Reddy sold house plot No.36, admeasuring 176
Sq.yards on behalf of Bollu Subhadra, wife of plaintiff under an
agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005, in favour of wife of defendant,
for a valuable consideration and delivered possession. As on the
date of the said agreement, vacant possession was delivered to the
wife of defendant, and since then she has been in peaceful
LNA, J
possession and enjoyment of the said plot and finally prayed to
dismiss the suit.
5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following
issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction
as prayed for?
2. To what relief?"
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1
to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf
of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no documents
were marked on behalf of the defendant.
7. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit with costs
by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property vide Judgment and Decree
dated 18.04.2018. The trial Court while decreeing the suit made the
following observations:-
"To prove the execution of Ex.A2 and A3, the plaintiff
also got examined PW.2 who is attestor of Ex.A2.
PW.2 in his chief affidavit deposed in support of
PW.1 and further stated that he along with
LNA, J
G.Sadasiva Reddy attested Ex.A2 and the receipt
Ex.A3. During cross-examination, it was elicited that
PW.2, since 1999 is residing at Guntur District but
however he got mentioned his residence as Athmakur
in his chief affidavit. It is clear that since 1999, PW.1
is residing at Guntur District and since then is not
residing at Warangal. However, this cannot brush
the evidence of PW.2 aside as Ex.A2 is of 1994 by
which year PW.2 was a resident of Warangal.
...........it is pertinent to mention that the defendant
has not given any suggestion or contradicted the
statement of PW.2 as G.Sadasiva Reddy being a
second attestor to Ex.A2 which amounts to
admission. Thus, from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2
coupled with Exs.A2 and A3, it goes to show that the
plaintiff purchased the property and is in possession
of the same since then."
"Though DW.1 deposed in the cross examination
that it is he who has raised the construction, did not
plead the same in its written statement for the best
reasons known to him. Thus, it appears that it is
plaintiff who raised construction."
"The defendant has not explained as to how Raji
Reddy is authorized to sell the suit schedule property
on behalf of Subadra, wife of plaintiff. Even if
considered for a moment that Raji Reddy is
authorized to sell the property, there ought to have
existed a document under which Subadra purchased
the property from Kamala Devi. Admittedly, the
LNA, J
defendant is silent as to how Subadra received the
property and its nature of document. In the absence
of the link, the theory of sale of property by Raji
Reddy on behalf of the wife of plaintiff to the wife of
defendant, do not hold any water. It is further
pertinent to mention that when defendant on one
hand claims that the entire property of plot No.36
was handed over by Kamala Devi to Sadasiva Reddy
under AS.No.20/1989, then how on earth its possible
for Raji Reddy to sell the same plot No.36
admeasuring 176 Sq.Yards to the wife of the
defendant on behalf of the wife of the plaintiff. These
two transactions averred by the defendant contradict
each other. Even considering for a moment that Raji
Reddy is authorized to sell property of Plot No.36, it
inturn gets admitted that there exists a sale
transactions between Kamala Devi and the plaintiff
or his wife. Thus, this clearly goes to show that the
defence of the defendant holds no water and the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property. The defendant got examined DW.2 and
DW.3 on its behalf who in their chief affidavit
deposed in consonance with DW.1 but during cross
examination their evidence was shaken. DW.2 who
deposed purchase of the property by defendant
through Raji Reddy in his chief affidavit, in cross
examination it was elicted that DW.2 does not know
how Subadra obtained the property and further he is
not an attestor to the said document. Thus, the
LNA, J
details as to how DW2 learnt about the alleged
agreement of sale of the defendant, which has not
seen the light of the day. On similar lines, DW.3 in
his cross examination deposed that the defendant
purchased the property under registered sale deed
which is never perused by him or is he attesting
witness to the same. DW.3, further does not know
how the vendor of the defendant obtained the
property. Thus, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 are of
no help to the plaintiff."
8. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial
Court, the defendant preferred appeal in AS.No.80 of 2022 on the
file of Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda. The first Appellate
Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal,
vide Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2025. In the impugned
Judgment, the first Appellate Court made the following
observations:
"The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A3 clearly
shows that the plaintiff has purchased the property
under agreement of sale. The contentions of the
defendant that the plaintiff claiming ownership
basing on the agreement of sale. It is to be noted that
the documents filed by the plaintiff was impounded.
At the same time the defendant is claiming that the
part of the suit schedule property was in the name of
LNA, J
his wife, who has purchased the property under
agreement of sale.
On one hand the defendant contending that an
agreement of sale obtained by plaintiff is invalid. On
the other hand the agreement of sale is in favour of
defendant's wife is valid. It is clearly shows the
double standards of the defendant, the documents of
the plaintiff clearly proved prima facie he is in
possession of the property. Hence, he is entitled for
permanent injunction as prayed."
9. Challenging the aforesaid Judgment and Decree passed by
the first Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed by the
defendant.
10. Heard Ms.Shravani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial
Court as well as the first Appellate Court, failed to consider the fact
that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming title under an agreement of
sale which does not confer any title to the respondent/plaintiff and
the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, the trial Court
decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the Fist Appellate
Court without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record
LNA, J
on behalf of the appellant/defendant. She further submits that
except oral evidence no material or evidence is placed by the
respondent/plaintiff in proof of ownership and title, therefore, the
trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the
same. She further submits that the appellant in appeal specifically
contended that he purchased the suit schedule property under an
agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005 and also undertook
construction, however, this aspect was not considered by both the
Courts. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the
impugned Judgment has to be set aside.
12. A perusal of record discloses that the respondent/plaintiff
filed suit for injunction simplicitor, however, title of the parties can
be gone into incidentally. The respondent/plaintiff filed three
documents in support of his contention i.e., Ex.A1-Certified copy
of registered sale deed dated 31.01.1966 bearing document
No.226/1966, Ex.A2-Notarized agreement of sale, dated
20.04.1994, and Ex.A3-Receipt, dated 25.04.1994 and also got
himself examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 to 4. PW.2 is the attestor of
Ex.A2.
LNA, J
13. However, the appellant/defendant did not place any material
on record though he claimed that he purchased the suit schedule
property under agreement of sale dated 23.01.2005. Though the
appellant/defendant contended that vendor of plaintiff Kamala
Devi handed over the subject property to G.Sadashiva Reddy in
terms of compromise entered into between them in
AS.No.20/1989, the said compromise recorded by the District
Court, Warangal, is not filed by the appellant. Further, the
appellant/defendant failed to explain as to how G.Raji Reddy was
empowered to execute agreement of sale on behalf of wife of
plaintiff and as to how she got the suit schedule property.
14. Both the Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff proved
his possession over suit schedule property, whereas the defendant
failed to substantiate his claim. Further, both the Courts have
specifically observed that the defendant has taken contradictory
stand and has failed to substantiate the same.
15. In considered opinion of this Court, the 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
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.
16. 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.
17. 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 falls for
consideration.
18. 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
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
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.
19. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:26.06.2025
tk
