Ravanaveni Thirupathi vs Nerella Rajamouli
2025 Latest Caselaw 3350 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ravanaveni Thirupathi vs Nerella Rajamouli on 24 March, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                SECOND APPEAL No.83 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and

decree dated 23.09.2024 in A.S.No.44 of 2022 passed by the I

Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, confirming the

judgment dated 05.08.2019 in O.S.No.266 of 2012 passed by

the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, the present

Second Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri J.T.Siva Seshu representing Sri Raja Gopallavan

Tayi, learned counsel for the Appellants.

3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the trial Court

and the first appellate Court and the respondents herein are the

defendants in both the trial Courts. For convenience, the

parties are referred to as they were referred in the suit.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiffs filed a suit

for declaration of the registered sale deed bearing

Doc.No.2023/2011, dated 14.07.2011 executed by defendant

No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and not

binding on the plaintiffs and declaration of registered sale deed

LNA,J

bearing Doc.No.2729 of 2011, dated 12.09.2011 executed by

defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void and

not binding on the plaintiffs and a relief for perpetual injunction

against the defendants.

5. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs are the

absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1-

03 guntas., out of Sy.No.308/D, situated at Asifnagar Village of

Karimnagar Mandal. The Plaintiffs are the sons and legal heirs

of one Mr.Ravanaveni Meenaiah. Originally, Mr. Ravanaveni

Venkati was the owner, pattadar and possessor of the land in

Sy.No.308/D to an extent of Acs.3.07 guntas and he died

leaving behind his three sons namely Ravanaveni Anjaiah,

Mallaiah and Meenaiah, who succeeded to the said property.

There was partition among the legal heirs of Ravanaveni Venkati

and the suit land of Ac.1.03 guntas fell to the share of late

Meenaiah out of total extent of Ac.3.07 guntas and the said

Meenaiah expired in the year 2006, leaving behind the plaintiffs

as legal heirs and successors to the said property. However, the

name of the original owner Ravanaveni Venkati continued in the

revenue records. The plaintiffs submitted an application to the

LNA,J

Tahsildar, Karimnagar to enter their names in the revenue

records in respect of the suit land being the legal heirs.

6. It is further averred that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are

residing in gulf countries and plaintiff No.3 is residing at

Hyderabad for his education. In the absence of plaintiffs in the

village, defendant Nos.1 and 2 got entered their names as

pattadars in the revenue records; that defendant No.1 executed

a sale deed bearing Doc.No.2003/2011, dated 14.07.2011 in

favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 executed a sale

deed bearing Doc.No.2729 of 2011, dated 12.09.2011 in favour

of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit schedule

property. It is averred that the suit land is covered by Granite

quarries and therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 demanded the

plaintiffs to sell the same for distress price, but the plaintiffs

refused to sell it; that in view of the same, defendant Nos.1 and

2 brought into existence the said sale deeds and they are trying

to occupy the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

7. The defendants filed written statement denying the

averments of the plaint and contended that the partition has

taken place among Ravanaveni Mallaiah and his brothers long

back and the land allotted to the share of Ravanaveni Meenaiah

LNA,J

was already sold by him during his lifetime and the plaintiffs did

not succeed to the suit land from him as alleged; that,

Ravanaveni Mallaiah sold Ac.1.02 guntas in Sy.No.308/D i.e.,

the subject land along with his other land Ac.1.06 guntas in

Sy.No.290 out of the share allotted to him, to Nerella Rajamouli-

defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed Doc.No.2382/78, dated

29.06.1978. It is further averred that since then, defendant No.1

has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the

property and his name was also mutated in the revenue records

as pattadars and possessors; that defendant No.1 executed

registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2003/2011, dated 14.07.2011,

in favour of defendant No.2 and in turn defendant No.2 executed

sale deed vide Doc.No.2729/2011, dated 12.09.2011 in favour

of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and their names were also mutated in

the revenue records vide proceeding No.B/5248/42/2011, dated

13.11.2011. It is further averred that the suit land was

converted into non-agricultural land by paying conversion fee

vide proceeding No.N/503/2012, dated 17.01.2012 for the

purpose of installation of granite stone cutting machine on the

suit land and defendant Nos.3 and 4 obtained Gram Panchayat

permission on 25.02.2012. It is further contended that the

LNA,J

plaintiffs have no land in Sy.No.308/D and they did not succeed

from their father. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

following issues:

"...6. On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the suit schedule mentioned property fell in the share of the Ravanaveni Meenaiah in the family settlement?

2. Whether the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule mentioned property through R. Meenaiah?

3. Whether defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule mentioned property from its rightful owner?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule mentioned property?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of their title to the suit schedule mentioned property and declaration as possessors of the suit schedule mentioned property?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of the registered sale deeds bearing No.2023/2011 and 2729/2011 of the office of the Sub Registrar, Gangadhara as null and void?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property?

8. To what relief ?..."

9. During the course of trial, plaintiff No.1 was examined as

PW1, Sri Ravanaveni Chandramouli was examined as PW2 and

Sri Ega Karunakar was examined as PW3 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 is

examined as DW1, Sri Bashetty Laxman was examined as DW2

and got marked Exs.B1 to B18. The trial Court on due

consideration of oral and documentary evidence as well as

pleadings dismissed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated

LNA,J

05.08.2019. The trial Court in its' judgment made the following

observations:

"The pahani for the year 1978-79 marked as Ex.84, clearly reveals that, the name of defendant No.1 was entered in possession column in the year 1978-79 itself. In the subsequent pahanies, which are marked under Ex.B5 to 87 shows that the name of defendant No.1 continued in possession column. But from the pahanies for the year 2000-01, the name of the defendant No.1 has been recorded as pattadar and possessor in respect of Ac.1-02gts of land out of Sy.No.308/D till the date of filing of the suit and continued even after filing of the present suit. The question to be answered here is, whether the defendant No.1 purchased the said property from the rightful owner? It is admitted fact that, one Ravanaveni Venkati was the original pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.308/D to an extent of Ac.3-07gts and the sons of said Venkati succeeded the said land. That there was a family partition among the sons of said Venkati. It is not disputed that, Ravanaveni Mallaiah is not the son of Ravanaveni Venkati and as already noted supra, there is no clarity with pregard to what portions of land was allotted to sons of Venkati in the alleged family partition. Therefore, it is to be assumed that, said Ravanaveni Mallajah Karimnagar i.e., vendor of plaintiff was allotted land covered under sale deed marked as Ex.B1 and he was the absolute owner of the land sold to defendant No.1 herein. From deriving the title from Ravanaveni Mallaiah through registered sale deed has become the owner, pattadar and possessor of the land covered under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.2382/1978. Apart from that, the plaintiff nor their father did not question or challenge the registered sale deed executed by Ravanaveni Mallaiah in favour of defendant No.1 herein in any manner. Thereby, it is to be presumed that, the said Ravanaveni Mallaiah acquired the absolute rights over the said property even by adverse possession. In view of the above discussion, it has to be held that the defendant No.1 purchased the property from rightful owner."

"The Plaintiffs exhibited only documents out of which Ex.A1 to A6 are the pahani records, which can reveal the possession over the agricultural lands. On perusal of the Ex.A1 to A6, the names of the plaintiffs is nowhere found, either as pattadar/owners or possessors. On the other hand, the pahani record as under Ex.B4 to B16 reveals that, the defendant No.1 has been continuing as owner and possessor of Ac.1-02gtsof land in Sy.No.308/D. Thus, the defendant has established his possession over the suit land from the date of his purchase in the year 1978 to till 2017. Ex.B17 signifies that, the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner with

LNA,J

absolute title over Ac.1-02gts of land in Sy.No.308/D through register sale transaction. Further, the unmarked positive photographs clearly shows that, there is an establishment of granite Industry in the the name and style as Girija Granites. Further, the Ex.B18 clearly shows that, the granite industry of defendant No.3 and 4 was registered as mineral dealer under rule5 (2) of A.P. Mineral Dealer Rules 2000 on 07.08.2013 by Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. In the presence of above said documentary evidence, in proof of the possession of defendants, Karimnagar there is no any significance to the oral evidence of the plaintiffs as well as to the few of elicited facts during the course of cross examination of witnesses on behalf of the defendants. Accordingly, issue No.4 is answered against the plaintiffs".

"As per the material available on record, the plaintiffs failed in leading any evidence to show that, they succeeded the property of their father and their names are entered in revenue records by way of virasath or any other mode. The plaintiffs also failed in showing that, they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. As per the discussion made while answering issue No.3, it was already stated that, the defendant No.1 purchased the suit property from its rightful owner through a registered sale deed. According to Ex.B1 the defendant No.1 acquired unfettered rights over the property covered under Ex.B1 and the Ex.B1 was of the year 1978, which was not challenged by the plaintiffs for more than 40 years. Therefore, the defendant No.1 transferred his absolute rights to his brother/defendant No.1 and his brother inturn transferred the same to his purchasers defendant No.3 and 4 through registered sale deeds bearing Doc.Nos.2023/2011 and 2729/2011. The plaintiffs utterly failed to show, in what way the above said registered sale deeds are invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, they are not entitled to get declaration that, the registered sale deeds bearing Doc. Nos.2023/2011 and 2729/2011 are null and void and not binding Karimnap on them."

10. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.266 of

2012, plaintiffs preferred appeal vide A.S.No.44 of 2022 on the

file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

11. The First Appellate Court being final court on facts

reappreciated the evidence and the material placed on record

and dismissed the Appeal vide Judgment and Decree

LNA,J

23.07.2024. In the impugned judgment the first appellate Court

made the following observations:

"Plaintiffs pleaded declaration of title under Sec.34 of S.R Act. Though oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is in accordance with the pleadings; the documents vide Ex.A1 to A6 never substantiate their contention. Secondly Ex.B1 is staring at the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, plaintiffs are duty bound to answer Ex.B1 document. Thirdly Ex.B1 is implemented and names of plaintiffs cousin and uncle can be seen in pahanies. In such circumstances knowledge comes into play. Cleverly plaintiffs started their case from the date of death of their father and also pleaded ignorance on the grand of been to Gulf country for livelihood."

"Ex.B1 is of 1978. Father of plaintiffs died in 2006. There is almost a gap of 32 yeas. Plaintiffs are duty bound to explain the reason for not challenging the Ex.B1 during the life time of their father. It infers that their father have knowledge and a �� య� the property was property alienated he kept quite. The plaintiffs after the death of their father came up with the suit. When there isa huge ap of 30 to 40 O to 40 gears, the limitation would certainly comes into play. Silence cannot be an answer in such circumstances or clever drafting shall not be a reason to accede to the claim of the plaintiffs."

"The Second plea of the plaintiffs is of declaration to declare the sale deed under Ex.A7 and a11 as null and void. Absolutely no material placed before the trial court to substantiate their claim. When issue of declaration to declare a document as void is coupled and connected to declaration of title; and once main issue is negatived; their issue cannot stand on its legs. Secondly, the plaintiffs cleverly sought declaration against Ex.A7 and A8 suppressing Ex.B1 to over come the aspect of limitation. Mere seeking the relief without the support of evidence will not benefit a party. Therefore, his claim for declaration also hold no water. Accordingly the point is answered in the negative."

"In the present case the Plaintiffs though pleaded declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction, except the pleading and oral evidence of PW.1, there is no evidence on record to believe that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as on the date of the suit. Secondly, PW.1 himself admitted the presence of granite plant over the suit land. The presence of granite plant is also proved by the Defendants by producing Ex.B3 and B18 document. In such circumstances, apparently the possession is not lying with the Plaintiffs. Therefore Plaintiffs ought to have sought for recovery of

LNA,J

possession and in the given circumstances, the suit for declaration coupled with injunction does not arise"

12. Learned counsel for Appellants would submit that the

Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to comply

with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to

determine the appellants' inheritant rights, despite their father

being the legal heir of the original owner. Thus, the Trial Court

as well as the first Appellate Court had not considered the

burden of proof and ignored the presumption in favour of the

appellants.

13. He would further submit that the cause of action for filing

the suit arose in the year 2011, when the appellants discovered

fraudulent sale deed. Therefore, dismissal of the suit on the

ground of limitation is unsustainable, in view of Article 58 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. He further contended that both the

Courts have committed error in upholding the validity of sale

deed of defendant Nos.1 to 4; Exs.B1 to B3, despite there being

no evidence in proof of title of R.Mallaiah in respect of suit

schedule property.

14. A perusal of the record would disclose that R.Mallaiah

alienated the suit schedule property along with others in favour

of defendant No.1 vide a registered sale deed Doc.No.2382/78,

LNA,J

dated 29.06.1978 and there after defendant No.1 sold the suit

schedule property to defendant No.2 vide Doc.No.2003/2011,

dated 14.07.2011 and in turn defendant No.2 alienated the

same in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 vide Doc.No.2729 of

2011, dated 12.09.2011 and the names of defendant Nos.3 and

4 were mutated in the revenue records as pattadars and

possessors vide proc.No.B/5248/42/2011, dated 13.11.2011.

It is also evident from the record that the land was converted

from agriculture to non-agricultural land vide

proc.No.N/503/2012, dated 17.01.2012 and granite stone

cutting machine was established in suit land by duly taking

permission and approvals from Gram Panchayat, Industry

Department, AP TRANSCO, Factories Department and Pollution

Control Board etc., which clearly shows the possession of the

defendants since the year 1978.

15. It is also evident that the plaintiff filed suit in the year

2012 and after more than thirteen (13) years from the date of

execution of sale deed the plaintiffs preferred the appeal and

failed to explain the delay for filing the suit for declaration and

perpetual injunction belatedly. The trial Court as well as the

first appellate court concurrently held that the suit is barred by

LNA,J

limitation and that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their

case by placing the evidence on record and further observed

that the defendants denied the pleadings of plaintiff by

producing Exs.B1 to B18 and thus, negatived the suit filed by

the plaintiffs for declaration and perpetual injunction.

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

considered opinion that the appellants 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 supported 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 on a Second Appeal cannot examine

the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power

(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546

LNA,J

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.

19. Having considered the entire material available on record

and the findings of 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 ground 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.

20. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is

accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:24.03.2025 EDS