Telangana High Court

Venishetty Kavitha, vs Chintal Ramchander, on 27 November, 2025

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                Second Appeal No.550 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the

appellant on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. The second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and

decree on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge at

Medak confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2023 in

O.S.No.73 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak,

wherein, the suit filed by the appellant herein seeking perpetual

injunction is dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is

claiming to be owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.248/4 to an

extent of Ac.2.06½ Gts., bounded by East: Residential School,

West: Agricultural land of K. Tirupathi, North: Road, South:

Agricultural land of K. Anantha Ramireddi, situated near

Residential School, Medak Municipality, Medak Town and

District. With respect to title, the appellant submitted that

originally M. Janardhan Reddy owned the suit schedule property

and then sold it to T. Satish and another through registered sale

deed document No.9 of 1995, dated 03.01.1995. Thereafter, said

T. Satish and another sold the suit schedule property to the

appellant vide registered sale deed document No.1023 of 1999,

dated 25.10.1999. Ever since, the appellant is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule land. She also availed agricultural

loan from Indian Bank, Medak by keeping the title deed as

collateral security. The respondents are in real estate business.

The said respondents without any right or interest have

interfered with the appellant's possession over the suit schedule

land taking advantage of her absence near the suit schedule

property. The appellant is living in Hyderabad for her childrens'

education and therefore, not residing locally. The respondents

approached the appellant demanding to sell the land, failing

which, they would grab the same. The suit schedule property is

located in a prime place in the centre of Medak. On 02.10.2018,

the respondents with antisocial elements tried to dispossess the

appellant and she resisted the same with great difficulty and filed

the suit to protect herself from being dispossessed from the suit

land.

4. The respondent No.2 filed written statement which is

adopted by respondent No.1 as well. The case of respondents is

that the appellant does not have any land in her possession in

Sy.No.248/4 admeasuring Ac.2.06½ Gts. The land of respondent

No.2 is located on the western side of land of the appellant's

land. The respondent No.2 called upon the appellant to prove her

title originating from M. Janardhan Reddy and then T. Satish

and another. The respondents denied making attempts to

interfere with the possession of the appellant and have never

tried to grab the suit schedule property. The cause of action on

02.10.2018 is concocted only for the purpose of filing the suit.

Further, according to respondent No.2, he owns land in

Sy.No.248/4/5A25 to an extent of Ac.0.08 Gts. and

Sy.No.248/3/E to an extent of Ac.0.02 Gts., total of Ac.0.10 Gts.

in Medak Town bounded on East: Land of the appellant, West: 20

ft. road, North: Agricultural land of C. Pochaiah and South:

Agricultural land of Anantha Ram Reddy. The respondent No.2

has ROR 1B and pattadar pass book and title with respect to his

Ac.0.10 Gts of land. According to respondent No.2, the appellant

with a malafide intention to grab his land filed a false suit.

Further, there is no ground for making the respondent No.1 as a

party to the suit and his presence amounts to mis-joinder of

parties. The respondent No.2 is in possession of his own land

and the suit lacks merits.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the defendant tried to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. The appellant/plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and

her son as PW2. Further, she exhibited Exs.A1 to A5. The

respondents got examined DWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1

to B24.

7. Upon hearing the case of both the counsels, the Trial Court

made an extensive discussion about the insufficient Court fee

paid to meet the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Senior Civil Court

and arrived at a conclusion that said defect can be cured by

directing the appellant to increase the valuation of the suit to

meet the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Senior Civil Court and then

to pay the deficit Court fee. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded

to examine the case of the appellant referring to the Exs.A1

to A5.

8. The major lacuna found by the Trial Court with respect to

the case of the appellant is that as per pleadings, the appellant

claimed her land to be located in Sy.No.248/4 to an extent of

Ac.2.06½ Gts. within specific boundaries whereas respondent

No.2 claimed his land to an extent of Ac.0.10 Gts. situated in

Sy.No.248/4/5A25 to an extent of Ac.0.08 Gts. and

Sy.No.248/3/E to an extent of Ac.0.02 Gts., which is on the

western side of land of the appellant. It is held that there is

failure on the part of the appellant to prove possession over the

suit schedule property. There is a major discrepancy about the

evidence of the appellant with respect to location of the suit

schedule property which according to Ex.A4 MeeSeva copy of

pahani for the fasli 1420, dated 02.02.2018 shows the survey

number as 248/4-5 అ 22 whereas Exs.A1 to A3 show the

location of land of appellant in Sy.No.248/4. The market value

certificate/Ex.A5 also shows the suit survey number as in Ex.A4

i.e., Sy.No.248/4-5అ22. There is no explanation to this

discrepancy between Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.A4 as to survey number

of the suit schedule property.

9. The Trial Court entertained genuine doubt about the

appellant's identity of suit schedule property. The same doubt

was entertained by the First Appellate Court as well. It is held

that the appellant failed to show her possession over the suit

schedule property and went to the extent of entertaining doubt

that the appellant may be trying to encroach the land of

respondent No.2. It is held that mere existence of title does not

prove possession, more so, when the appellant herself is claiming

to be residing in Hyderabad. In that sequence of assessment of

fact situation, the Trial Court entertained doubt about the

genuineness of cause of action on 02.10.2018 as there is no

supporting evidence except the self-serving oral evidence of the

appellant as PW1 and her son as PW2. Further, a doubt is

entertained about the possession of appellant over the suit

schedule property as only pahani for the fasli 1420 is filed, but,

none from 1999 onwards to show the possession. It is held that

except for filing the title deeds in the form of registered sale

deeds, pattadar pass book, market value certificate and MeeSeva

copy of pahani for the fasli 1420 only, no credible evidence is

produced to prove possession. Consequently, the Trial Court held

that there is failure to show possession over the suit schedule

property, interference on 02.10.2018 and therefore, the relief of

perpetual injunction is denied.

10. The same factual findings are given by the First Appellate

Court. In addition to the aforementioned findings, the First

Appellate Court also arrived at a conclusion that when there is a

boundary dispute between the appellant and respondent No.2

and there is a question about the extent of plaintiff's land of

Ac.2.06½ Gts. within the boundaries stated, a simple suit for

injunction is not maintainable. The First Appellate court also

arrived at a conclusion that there was difficulty in identification

of suit schedule property within the boundaries stated by the

appellant and therefore, she cannot seek equitable relief of

perpetual injunction. There is also reference to the discrepancy in

the survey number of suit schedule land as the plaintiff is

seeking perpetual injunction with respect to land in Sy.No.248/4

whereas the survey numbers of land of respondent No.2 are

248/4/5A25 and 248/3/E. As such, the First Appellate Court

also dismissed the Appeal giving rise to the filing of present

Second Appeal with proposed following substantial questions of

law:

I. That the learned First Appellate Court miserably failed to exercise the appellate jurisdiction in proper prospective and simply endorsed by reiterating the view of the Trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances, basing on arguments of the appellant the points raised were not addressed at all, amounts to serious jurisdictional error on the part of the First Appellate Court causing prejudice to the Appellant/Plaintiff?

II. That the Court below not appreciated the evidence of PW-1 of the registered sale deed consisting of the boundary of the suit schedule property in fact it has observed error of the defendant boundary without there being any document, both the Courts below erred in observing the defendants not proved that they have not interfered and no such sale deed which was not submitted before the Court below?

III. Whether the Court below and the appellate Court the documents filed by the defendants in filing only pahanies and pattedar pass book except the same, not a single document of evidence is filed to show the boundaries of the defendant suit schedule property. That the defendant encroaching the land of the appellant herein having every possibility as the appellant proved in showing her boundaries therefore the defendants interfering be proved?

IV. That the Court below on assumptions and surmises of the facts and without considering the evidence filed by the appellant had dismissed the suit?

V. Whether the observation of Court below in Poona Ram Vs. Moti Ram (died) through LRs and others, 2019(2) ALD 64 (SC) against the appellants herein is valid?

11. Among the above substantial questions of law, the question

at Sl.No.I is in the nature of a question raised before a First

Appellate Court and cannot be categorized as a substantial

question of law. The question at Sl.No.II is an issue about the

finding of fact given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court

about common boundary existing between the land of appellant

and respondent No.2 and failure on the part of the appellant to

prove interference when there are concurrent findings of fact by

both the Trial Court and Appellate Court. In the absence of

demonstration of perversity, this Court cannot venture to

examine the appropriateness of findings as to existence of border

dispute or failure to prove interference as a third Trial court.