Sk. Raheem vs Sattu Saidulu
2025 Latest Caselaw 32 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sk. Raheem vs Sattu Saidulu on 1 May, 2025

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  SECOND APPEAL No.214 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree, dated 23.09.2024, passed by the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Suryapet District, at Suryapet, in A.S.No.09 of 2024,

whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2021,

passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, in O.S.No.159 of 2011

was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are

plaintiffs, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the

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

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated tin the plaint are that

plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2011, for perpetual injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and

enjoyment of the residential vacant site bearing D.No.2-1-225,

measuring 309.07sq.yards, situated in Suryapet Municipality

(hereafter referred to as 'schedule property'). It is averred that 2 LNA, J

parental grandfather of plaintiffs namely Sathu Venkanna was the

owner of the schedule property; that out of love and affection, he

gifted the schedule property to plaintiffs through registered Gift deed

No.7874/11, dated 09.08.2011; that plaintiffs were in possessions of

the schedule property and since the house was dilapidated, plaintiffs

removed old structure and constructed basement to the ground level

and applied for permission with the municipal authorities to construct

house and the same is pending. Defendants without having any right

over the schedule property, tried to occupy the same on 31.08.2011,

which was resisted by the plaintiff and the defendants threatened the

plaintiffs to dispossess them at any cost. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendants filed written statement denying the allegations

made in the plaint and contended that Sathu Venkanna was not the

owner of the schedule property, therefore, the question of executing

gift deed and handing over the possession of the schedule property

does not arise and that all the documents submitted by the plaintiffs

are false and created in collusion with municipal officials to file this

suit. It is further averred that defendants are in possession of the

schedule property since 1982 and since, their house collapsed, they 3 LNA, J

removed the old structure and constructed basement. Plaintiffs filed

false suit to grab the schedule property and infact the suit is barred by

limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial

Court framed the following issues for trial:-

"(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, workmen, servents etc., from causing interference the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

(2)) To what relief?"

6. During the course of the trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1

and DW.2 were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and

documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial

Court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2021.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-

"5.1. The case of plaintiffs is simple that their grandfather was original owner of suit schedule property and he gifted the 4 LNA, J

same to them through registered gift deed through which they became owners and possessors of the same. On the other hand from written statement what can be perceived is that defendants are claiming possession over the same since 1982 and contending that they perfected their title over it as such. There was nothing in written statement as to how they came into its possession and how did they acquire title over it. From the words 'perfected their title', it impresses that they are claiming their title over it vide concept of adverse possession. But surprisingly without there being no specific pleading, they adduced evidence that defendant no.1 purchased the suit property in 1982 through simple sale deed from Sattu Venkulu and his two brothers. As such evidence and arguments on behalf of defendants were beyond their pleadings. 5.12. As such there appears sufficient evidence in favor of plaintiffs. Hence, the burden shifts to defendants to disprove the contentions of plaintiffs and to prove their contentions. On one hand defendants contended that they perfected their title over suit property by their possession over it since 1982, and on the other hand they adduced evidence to the effect that D1 purchased the same from its owner in 1982 and as such she is in possession of the same since then.

5.13. As discussed supra during the suggestions made to PW1 in cross examination there were no much details of the said simple sale transaction. Later during cross examination of PW2 it was suggested that on 16-6-1982 the suit schedule property was sold for Rs.13,000/- by PW2 & his elder brother/Malsoor by taking money from D1. The said 5 LNA, J

suggestion was denied by PW2. But surprisingly, DW1 herself was silent as to details of such sale transaction, though deposed that she purchased it, vaguely.

5.14. As seen from her chief examination affidavit itself, by the time of filing such affidavit, the documents referred therein were already in her knowledge and possession. ExB1 to B3 were marked for defendants. ExB1 is original agreement dtd 16-6-1982. This is the date which DW1 stated as date of purchase of suit property by her. But as seen from ExB1, its only an agreement to sell. Further according to DW1, she purchased it from original owner. She did not depose who it was. As per above suggestion to PW2, it was PW2 & Sattu Malsoor. But as seen from ExB1, it was executed by three persons viz., PW2, Sattu Malsoor and Sattu Dargaiah. Who is this Dargaiah is not known. Even as per ExB1 contents, said house b.no.2-1-225 was in the name of Sattu Malsoor as per municipal records. But no such municipal records are filed in support thereof. Further ExA1 is contrary to it. Surprisingly, though ExB1 shows that said house was in the name of said Malsoor, it contained that PW2 is selling it. When Malsoor is owner of it, how can PW2 sell it as contained in ExB1 is not understood. To make it more ambiguous, the initial lines of the document contained that the house of PW2 is being sold through it. As such ExB1 was patently ambiguous."

8.1. The trial Court has further observed as hereunder:-

6 LNA, J

"5.25. As such entire evidence adduced on behalf of defendants was inconsistent, self-contradictory, ambiguous and not inspiring confidence at all. On the other hand plaintiffs have consistent and satisfactory evidence in support of their contentions. So far as construction of basement, plaintiffs got marked ExA4/photos. While plaintiffs contended that such construction of basement was made by them, defendants contended that it was made by them. ExA4 shows basement in a vacant site. By such photos, who constructed the same cannot be concluded unless there is independent evidence in that regard.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2021, defendants

preferred A.S.No.9 of 2021. During the pendency of the suit,

defendant No.1 expired, however, no steps were taken to bring the

legal representatives on record, therefore, appeal against defendant

No.1 abated.

10. 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 its judgment dated

23.09.2024, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

11. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed as

hereunder:-

7 LNA, J

"18. After careful perusal of Ex.A1 to A3 clearly indicates that the property stands in the name of Sattu Venkulu who is grandfather of the plaintiffs. Ex.A1 to A3 are dt: 5.8.2011 clearly indicate the name of Sattu Venkulu as owner of the suit schedule property and it is presumed that he is in possession of the property on or before filing of the suit. Further it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the grandfather Sattu Venkulu had executed Ex.A2 in their favour and also delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. PW2 who is the donor under Ex.A2 also admitted that he had executed Ex.A2 in favour of plaintiffs and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

......

20. In support of their claim defendants have relied on Ex.B1 to

B3. Ex.B1 is the original agreement dt:16.6.1982 which shows that it is executed by Sattu Venkulu and S.Malsoor in favour of Md.Janu. This document seems to be executed by Sattu Venkulu and S.Malsoor whereas, on the revenue stamp three vendors have signed in the capacity of vendors i.e. Sattu Venkulu, S.Malsoor and S.Dargaiah"

11.1. The first Appellate Court further observed as hereunder:-

21. Ex.B2 is the receipt executed in Ex.B1 and this Ex.B2 shows that S.Dargaiah has received Rs.1,000/-.

8 LNA, J

22. Ex.B3 is the original sale deed dt: 4.9.1982 alleged to have executed by S.Malsoor in favour of Sk.Mahaboob Bee in respect of the suit schedule property.

23. After careful perusal of Ex.B1 to B3 those documents are not consistent nor supporting each other. Because Ex.B1 indicate that it is executed by Sattu Venkulu and S.Malsoor in favour of Md.Janu S/o Gulam Hussain whereas Ex.B3 is original sale deed shows that it is executed by S.Malsoor in favour of Mahaboob Bee W/o Janimiya.

24. Further in the written statement the defendants have not pleaded that they have purchased the suit schedule property through simple sale deed in the year 1982 for a valuable consideration form its original owner. Therefore this piece of evidence cannot be considered as there is no pleading in the written statement. The defendants have also not filed any document to show their possession as on the date of filing of the suit. As I discussed supra Ex.B1 to B3 not corroborating with each other and each document shows the different vendors and purchasers of suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial court rightly not placed any reliance on Ex.B1 to B3.

12. Heard Sri Mohd Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel for the

appellant. Perused the entire material available on record.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court

as well as first appellate Court decreed the suit on improper 9 LNA, J

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

Learned counsel further contended that both the Courts ignored Ex.B1

to Ex.B3, which are crucial and original sale deeds and came to an

erroneous conclusion and decreed the suit, therefore the impugned

judgment is liable to be set aside. Thus, prayed to allow the second

appeal.

14. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Court as well

as the first Appellate Court concurrently held that plaintiffs through

oral and documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 proved

his possession and title over the schedule property and whereas,

defendants have failed to place any evidence and material on record

evidencing their ownership over schedule property. The trial Court as

well as First appellate Court categorically observed that defendants

have not placed any admissible evidence on record to prove their title

as well as possession of over the schedule property. The first

Appellate Court specifically observed that defendants have claimed

the schedule property under simple sale deed and there is no pleadings

to that effect and further, there is inconsistency in the contention of

the defendants that ExB.1 was executed by Sathu Venkulu in favour 10 LNA, J

of Mohd. Janu whereas, Ex.B3 sale deed shows that it was executed

by Sattu Malsoor in favour of defendant No.1.

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 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.

(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 11 LNA, J

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 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.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Date:01.05.2025 Tssb/kkm