Telangana High Court
Mr. Enguluri Nara Goud vs Mr. Kounda Ravinder on 24 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL NO.27 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and
decree dated 28.08.2024 in A.S.No.82 of 2022 passed by the
Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.10.2022 in O.S.No.69 of 2014 passed by the Senior
Civil Judge, Kamareddy, the present Second Appeal is filed.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents
herein are the defendants 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 filed a suit in
O.S.No.69 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, for
perpetual injunction contending that he is the owner and
possessor of open land admeasuring Ac.0.16½ guntas in
Sy.No.1078/e, Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.1078/EE2, Ac.0.08¼ guntas
in Sy.No.1079/AA, Ac.0.08¼ guntas in Sy.No.1079/EE, total
extent of Ac.1.00 guntas, situated near Bus Stand, Lingampet
LNA, J
village and Mandal, Kamareddy district (for short, 'suit land') and
the defendants, without having any right or title, in collusion with
the unsocial elements, are interfering with the possession of the
plaintiff over the suit land and that on 05.11.2014, defendants have
came to the suit land and tried to stop the work of the plaintiff in
the suit land and, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual
injunction.
4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement and averred
that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land and the
boundaries of the suit land are not correct and the suit land is not
the ancestral property of the plaintiff. It is further averred that
plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2009 against the father of
defendant No.2 in respect of the suit land and the said suit was
dismissed for default, in which plaintiff has mentioned that he
purchased the suit property under two registered sale deeds vide
Doc.Nos.257/1987 and 983/1993 and suppressing the same, the
present suit is filed. It is further averred that plaintiff has already
alienated several plots in Sy.No.1079 to various individuals
through registered sale deeds and defendant No.1 is the owner of
LNA, J
plot admeasuring 66.66 square yards in Sy.No.1078/EE/2 having
purchased the same from the defendant No.2 under registered sale
deed vide document No.1455/2014; that the defendant No.1 has
constructed a house over the said plot by obtaining permission
from the competent authority. Finally, they prayed to dismiss the
suit.
5. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and averred that
defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of house plot
admeasuring 66.66 square yards and the plaintiff is not the owner
of subject land and that no cause of action arisen for filing the suit.
It is further averred that defendant No.3 purchased the part of the
suit property i.e., house No.2-120/1 through registered sale deed
vide document No.570/2018 from the defendant no.2 and sold the
same to one Bollu Bhagya through registered sale deed vide
document No.2012/21 dated 13.09.2021 and prayed to dismiss the
suit.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues:
LNA, J
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek perpetual
injunction as prayed for ?
2) To what relief ?
7. During the trial, on behalf of plaintiff, Pws.1 to 3 were
examined, Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of defendants,
DWs.1 to 5 were marked and Ex.B1 to B9 were marked.
8. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and
documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, vide
order dated 20.10.2022 dismissed the suit with the following
observations:
"IV. P.W.1/plaintiff in cross-examination admitted that the suit
schedule property is not his ancestors property, he purchased it
through registered sale deeds, the suit schedule land is covered
with 26 plots, in the year 2011, he made the suit schedule
property into plots, the suit schedule property is having 10
shutters and a house. It is further admitted by plaintiff as P.W.1
during last 10 years, he sold plots to several persons by
obtaining permission from RDO, the purchasers are in
possession, in some of the plots houses are constructed, there
are no crops in the suit schedule property, the defendants
constructed shutters towards road side and they are having
open place.
LNA, J
VI. P.W.1 admitted that the defendant No.2 ancestors are
owners of land in Sy.No.1078 and converted it into the plots, the
defendant no.2 having shutters, sold it to different persons by
way of registered sale deeds. The plaintiff in cross examination
as P.W.1 stated that the remaining land with him is Ac.0.10
guntas after sale deeds executed by him, but failed to give the
boundaries and admitted that the suit schedule boundaries are
not of remaining land, the suit land converted into non-
agriculture land. Cross-examination of P.W.1 established that
the plaintiff filed this suit for injunction on false grounds
suppressing the fact that there are houses and shutters in the
suit land. P.W.2 in cross-examination clearly deposed that the
suit land is converted into the plots. PW.3 deposed that there
are houses and mulgies in suit land, they belongs to the
defendant No.1 and 2. Oral evidence of DW.1 to DW.5 and
documentary evidence in Exs.B1 to B9 more particularly Ex.B4-
title deed is in the name of father of the defendant No.2, it
established that, the defendants have right over suit schedule
property, the plaintiff suppressed said fact and filed the suit,
there is cloud over the title and ownership of the plaintiff,
therefore, the present suit for mere perpetual injunction
simplicotor is not maintainable as per the guidelines laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Ananthula Sudhakar
v. Buchireddy reported in AIR 2008 2033."
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2022, the
plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2022 before the
Principal District Judge, Kamareddy (first Appellate Court).
LNA, J
10. 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 28.08.2024
with the following observations:
"26. Plaintiff failed to establish his pleas regarding the mode of
acquisition of suit land and his possession over the suit land
within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule as on
the date of filing the suit. As already stated, plaintiff suppressed
the factum of conversion of suit land into plots and sale of
Ac.0.30 guntas out of suit land of Ac.1.00 guntas covered by
plots to different persons and construction of houses and
shutters in suit land. By showing wrong boundaries and more
extent of land plaintiff filed suit by creating artificial and
imaginary cause of action. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 3
established that they have constructed their houses on portion
of suit land by purchasing the plots and they are in physical
possession of those houses and mulgies.
27. ... There is serious dispute from the defendants with regard
to the title and possession of plaintiff over suit land within the
boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Out of suit land,
even according to admissions of P.W.1 in cross-examination, he
sold out Ac.0.30 guntas and there remained only Ac.1.10 guntas,
but the suit is filed for Ac.1.00 guntas. Instead of filing suit for
declaration of title and recovery of possession, plaintiff has
chosen to file suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor. Court is
of the considered opinion that the suit for perpetual injunction
simplicitor is not maintainable. Judging from any angle, court is
of the considered opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for
perpetual injunction as prayed for. "
11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2024 in
AS No.82 of 2022, the present Appeal is filed.
LNA, J
12. Heard Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel
appearing for appellant. Perused the record.
13. Learned counsel for appellant had contended that trial Court
as well as first Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the suit and
appeal filed by the appellant without properly appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is further
contended that both the Courts committed error and came to
erroneous conclusion that the suit property is ancestral property,
despite the fact that the properties were purchased by the
appellant vide sale deeds document Nos.257/1987 and 983/1993.
He further contended that both the Courts have recorded perverse
findings and though no issues were framed with regard to the
ownership of the plaintiff, the trial Court has erroneously
observed that plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration
when there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and therefore,
prayed to allow the present appeal.
14. Perusal of the record would disclose that the trial Court as
well as first Appellate Court specifically observed that in the
LNA, J
plaint, the plaintiff has claimed the suit property to be an ancestral
property, however, the plaintiff filed earlier suit in O.S.No.17 of
2009 in respect of the same suit property, wherein the plaintiff
claimed ownership under registered sale deeds vide document
Nos.257 of 1987 and 983 of 1993, which clearly amounts to
suppression of fact. The trial Court and the first appellate Court
have also observed that the property has been converted into plots
and the same were sold to various individuals and it was also
admitted by the plaintiff in the cross-examination that the suit is
filed mentioning that the suit property is ancestral property.
Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the same was
upheld by the first appellate Court.
15. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellant 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.
LNA, J
16. 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.
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 fell for
consideration.
18. 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.
(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546
LNA, J
19. 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: 24.03.2025
kkm
LNA, J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL NO.27 OF 2025
Date: 24.03.2025
kkm
