Telangana High Court
Singampally Raja Rao vs Bupathi Paidithalli on 8 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Second Appeal No.390 of 2025
Judgment:
Heard Sri Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri P. Rama Sharabna Sharma, learned counsel for
the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code has been filed by the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by the
Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem in A.S.No.33 of
2025 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.06.2023 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in O.S.No.169
of 2015.
3. Initially, suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the file
of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem seeking declaration
of his possessory title and for consequential recovery of possession
under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act and for arrears of damages
and future damages. The said suit was partly decreed declaring the
possessory title of respondent with a direction to the appellants to
vacate the suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of
judgment. The relief with respect to past and future damages has
been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants
filed preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.33 of 2024 and said appeal
has been dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Second Appeal is preferred by raising Eight (8) substantial questions
of law.
4. While arguing about the maintainability, the learned counsel
for the appellants raised the following 2nd substantial question of
law:
"Whether a suit for declaration of title based on adverse
possession is maintainable without the plaintiff proving
continuous, uninterrupted, hostile possession over the suit
schedule property for the statutory period?"
5. No emphasis is made on any of the remaining substantial
questions of law. On the above issue, there was heated discussion
about whether declaration of possessory title can be sought and, in
such scenario, there can be an occasion for adverse possession by
the appellant. It is admitted by both the parties that the land in
question was Government land which was occupied decades ago by
the respondent and appellant No.1. There is no title to the land
except right over said land on account of long standing possession.
For making any claim of adverse possession, the title of the owner
has to be acknowledged. In the instant case, there is no title for the
respondent for the same to be acknowledged by the appellants
before claiming adverse possession. Be that as it may, the suit was
filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act alleging dispossession
and seeking relief of declaration of possessory title and recovery of
possession. As per Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, no
appeal or review is maintainable against any order or decree passed
in any suit instituted under said section. Relevant provision is
extracted and produced below:
6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. --
1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property
otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through
him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other
title that may be set up in such suit.
2) No suit under this section shall be brought--
(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or
(b) against the Government.
3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted
under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be
allowed.
4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his
title to such property and to recover possession thereof.
6. The above Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act clearly stipulates
that neither an appeal nor a review is maintainable against the order
passed by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.169 of 2015. The only
remedy available for the appellants herein was to prefer a Civil
Revision Petition. However, mistakenly, the First Appeal was
preferred and the same was registered and disposed of by the
learned First Appellate Court. As per Section 6(3) of the Specific
Relief Act, the First Appeal itself is not maintainable, therefore, the
question of admitting Second Appeal does not arise.
7. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable. The appellants are at liberty to pursue other remedies
available to them, if any. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Second
Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 08.09.2025
GVL
