Telangana High Court
SA/435/2024 of Mr. Ginnela Venkatesh @ Sarangi Venkateswarlu Vs Mr. Venkata Ramanamma on 31 December 2024
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 435 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 07-03-2024 made in A.S.No.43
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVIBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 435 OF 2024
Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated07-03-2024 made in A.S.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the PrincipatDistrict Judge, Nagarkurnool, preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed inO.S.No.121 of 2013 daled 13-02-2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior CivilJudge, at Kollapur.
Between:
Mr. Ginnela Venkatesh @ Sarangi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Jambulaiah, Age 46years, Occ Business, R/o. Steel Shop No. 6, G.P Complex Near Govt.Hospital, Kollapur Town and Mandal of Nagarkurnool District
...Appellant / Plaintiff
AND
Mr. Venkata Ramanamma, W/o. Ramudu, Age 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No. 1- B- 74, Near Sri Sathya Sai Cinema Talkies, Kollapur Town andMandal of Nagarkurnool DistrictH.No. 1- B- 74, Near Sri Sathya Sai Cinema Talkies, Kollapur Town andMandal of Nagarkurnool District
...Respondent / Defendant
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section ['151 ]CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thp High Court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of the Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2024 in A.S. No.43 of 2019 on the file of Principal District at Nagarkurnool otherwise, I will be putirreparable loss and damages which cannot be compensated by any means.
lA NO:2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petation, the High Court may be pleased toextension of lnterim Orders dt 30-10-2024 passed in lA No 1 oI 2024 in SA No435 of 2024 until disposal of the Second Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N Bhujanga RaoCounsel for the Respondent : Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy KothaThe Court delivered the following Judgment :
THE HONOURABLE [SRIJUSTICE ][N. ][TUKARAMJI]SECOND APPEAL No.43[5][ oF ][2024]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed [challenging ][the ][decree ][and ][judgment]dated07.03-2014inASNo.43of20lgpassedbythePrincipalDistrict Judge, [Nagarkurnool, ][whereby ][the ][judgment ][dated]13.02.2019 in OS [No.121 ][of ][2013 ][on the ][file of ][the ][Junior ][Civil]Judge, KollaPur, [has been inversed.]
2. Heard Sri N.Bhujanga [Rao, learned counsel for ][the ][appellant]and Sri Jagan [Mohan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel ][for ][the]respondent.
3. The relevant [facts ][in ][brief are that ][the ][appellant herein ][as]plaintiff filed the suit in OS [No.121 ][of ][2013 ][seeking ][perpetual]injunction against [the ][defendant over ][the ][suit schedule ]['A' and ]['B']properties (schedule'A' [property ][is ][150 ][Sq'yds of ][open ][plot ][and]schedule 'B' [property ][is ][300 ][Sq'yds ][of ][open ][plot) ][The]appellanUplaintiff [case ][is ][that, ][the ][respondenUdefendant ][without]any manner of right [or ][interest over ][the suit ][schedule ][properties' ][is]interfering [with ][his ][possession. ][As ][per ][the appellant' ][the ][schedule]properties originally [belonged ][to ][his ][father ][and the ][same ][were]
gifted to him under registered deeds on 31 .12.2012 and he is inpossession and enjoyment of the property
4. On the other hand, the respondenUdefendant's case is thatthe plaint 'A' schedule property was the property of the plaintiffsfather and he sold the same under an unregistered saledeed/Ex.B1 to one Krishna Murthy and B.Mohan Rao/DW.2 on15 09.2003 From them, she purchased under unregistered saledeed dated 08.09.2005/Ex.82, since then she is in possession ofthe property Her further case is that she purchased plaint ['B']schedule property under another unregistered sale deed/Ex.83dated 19 09 1986 from the original owner S.V.K.B.A.LaxmaRao/DW 4 and the property was delivered to her on the date of thesale deed and she in possession of the property. Thus, seekingperpetual injunction against her over the suit schedule properties isun-sustained 5 The trial Court, having regard to the evidence placed by theparties, decreed the suit with costs in favour of theappellanUplaintiff restraining the respondenUdefendant frominterference over the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved thereby,the respondenUdefendant preferred the appeal. The appellateCourt having reconsidered the material by observing that Jlrd unregistered sale [deeds ][were proved ][by ][the ][respondenUdefendant]andtheappellanuplaintifffailedtoflleanydocumentestablishinghis possession, [reversed the findings ][and ][selaside ][the judgment]of perpetual injunction [passed by the ][trial ][Court ][Thus, ][the ][plaintiff]preferred this second aPPeal.
6'LearnedcounselfortheappellanUplaintiffwouldcontestthatthe appellate Court [had grossly ][erred in ][recording ][the findings ][of]the title over the [properties though ][the ][documents relied ][upon ][by]the respondenVdefendant [are ][unregistered and ][would not ][convey]any title. Thus, [the appellate Court accepting the unregistered sale]deeds/Ex.B1 to [83 ][and ][conclusively ][recording ][the title' ][without]therebeinganymaterialprovingpossessionespeciallyintheteethof the admission [that ][the ][suit schedule ][properties ][were ][purchased]by the respondenVdefendant [under ][unregistered ][deeds' ][setting]aside the injunction [granted ][by the ][trial ][Court ][is ][unsustainable']hence prayed for interference [in second appeal']
7. Learned counsel cited [the ][authority between Tulasidhara]and another v. [Narayanappa ][and ][othersl ][to ][show ][that ][the]formulation of [substantial question ][of ][law in ][a ][case where ][reverse]recorded [by the ][Courts below ][is ][stne ][qua non ][tor]findings were ' [(lo ][tq) 6 ][Suprcme ][Court ][Cases ][409]
exercising the [jurisdiction ]under Section 100 of the Code of CivilProced u re8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondenUdefendant would plead that the documents filed by the appellanti.e., registered gift deeds/Exs 41 and 42 does not disclose deliveryof possession. Whereas, the unregistered sale deeds/Exs.B1 and82 are reflecting delivery of possession. Therefore, the aspect ofpossession is evident by the document and the Courts below hadpositively considered such aspect. He further submits that theunregistered sale deeds were marked, without any objection and itis settled position that the unregistered sale deeds may be takeninto account for collateral purpose including determination ofpossession. Thus. the appellate Court was proper in consideringthe documents and concluding the factum of possession over theproperty and dismissing the appellanVplaintiffls claim. Hence,prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel and also the documents placed on record.
'10. In the rival submissions, the preliminary question that arises.. [for ][determination ]is whether the appellate Court had perversely the [facts and ][material ][in ][determining ][the ][prayer ][of]appreciated perpetual injunction?
11. lt is [pertinent ][to ][note that, the appellant and respondent ][are]siblings and children [of ][PW-2. The appellant ][as ][PW-1 ][to ][prove the]title over the suit schedule [properties ][had ][placed ][the registered ][gift]deeds/Exs.A1 and [A2 ][and ][also ][examined his father ][as ][PW'2' ][ln]evidence, the PW.2 [testified ][that ][he ][had ][purchased ][the ][suit]schedule [properties ][from ][the ][owner ][and ][they are ][self-acquired ][and]he gifted them to [his ][son/PW.1. ][ln ][cross-examination ][he ][asserted]that the suit schedule [properties ][were ][purchased ][from ][the]erstwhile Raja i.e., [one ][Jagannatha ][Rao ][under ][two ][or ][three]sale [deeds and ][that ][those ][documents ][were stolen ][by]registered the defendant and [denied ][execution ][of ][any ][unregistered ][sale]deeds in favour of [Krishna Murthy ][and ][Monhan Rao']
12. ln regard to the [suit ][schedule ]['A' ][property, ][the ][defendant]placed the unregistered [sale deeds/Exs.B1 ][and 82 on ][record ][and]examined one of [her vendors ][tt/lohan ][Rao ][as ][DW'2 ][The ][DW'2]thoughinthechiefaffidavitsupportedtheversionofdefendant'incross-examination [clarified that the PW.2 ][0btained ][hand ][loan ][from]Krishna Murthy and [the ][suit ][schedule'A' ][property ][was ][never ][sold]
to l\tlohan Rao. but mortgaged to himself and M.Krishna Murthy assecurity towards hand loan
13. This statement of DW.2 is effecting the root of Ex B'1 and theclaim of unregistered sale or execution of the document Further, itis well settled position that no one can transmit better title thanwhat he/she has. Thus, the foundation of the defendant over theplaint 'A' schedule property under Ex.B-2 stands demolished andalso the averments whatsoever therein. Pertinently, the defendantclaimed that she had purchased the property from Krishna Murthyand Mohan Rao/DW.2 and they in turn said to have purchasedfrom the PW.2. This stance itself is an admission as to the tifle ofPW.2 over the schedule 'A' property. ln the absence of foundationand any specific document showing possession of the defendantover the Schedule 'A' property and basing on the settledproposition that in the case of vacant land, the possession shouldbe presumed basing on title, the plaintiff shall be held as inpossession. As such, the conclusion drawn by the appellate Courtin regard to paint ['A' ]schedule property is liable to be set aside.
14. So far as, suit 'B' schedule property is concerned, theplaintiffs case is that under Ex.A-1, he got tifle over the property.Ot the other hand, the defendant claiming the property undef Ex.B-3. Further, the [defendant ][got examined her ][vendor as ][DW.4']The DW.4 deposed that, he [sold ]the [property ][under ][Ex.B-3 ][in]favour of the defendant [with ][the ][boundaries mentioned ][in ][the ][sale]deed.
'15. ln Ex A-1 the schedule 'B' property is in extent of 300 Sq.ydswith the boundaries East: House of Jangala Pedda [Chinthalaiah']
West : House of Jangala [Motha Ramaiah]North: Saranga Eshwaraiah [vacant plot]
South: ['10'feet ]road
Whereas, in Ex.B-3, the [plot admeasuring 286 of Sq.yds ][with]following boundaries:
East: Plot given to Jangala [Chinthalaiah,]
West. Plot [given ]to Bitchagaala [Ramulu,]
North: Plot of vendors
South: Plot [given ]to Saranga [Venkateshwarlu]
16. The above noted [boundaries ][are ][clarifying ][the ][aspect ][that]the plot claimed by the [defendant under ][Ex.B3 ][is ][distinct ][to that ][of]plaint 'B' schedule property. However, [by ][the ][pleadings ][of ][the]defendant, it is evident that [the defendant ][is claiming ][the ][plaint ]['B']schedule [property ]to that [of ][the ][property ][in ][Ex.B-3. ][Nonetheless,]as the plaintiff and defendant [claimed ][properties are distinct and ][as]
To,
the suit 'B' schedule property being the vacant land, in the absenceof specific evidence showing possession over the property, theparty with better title shall be held as in possession of the property(See Anathula Sudhakarv. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrsz) .
17. For the above said reasons, the other contentions of thedefendant that the sale deeds of his vendor were not filed by theplaintiff or the gift deeds does not reflect delivery of the suitschedule properties fall insignificant ln this factual position, theplaintiff s entitlement for perpetual injunction against the defendantcan safely be concluded and as the appellate Court fell in error inproperly appreciating the evidence on record, the impugnedjudgment is liable to be and is accordingly set-aside. ln effect, thedecree and [judgment ]passed by the trial Court is restored.
18 ln the result, the second appeal is allowed. No costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed.
Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAOJONNT REGISTRARv
//TRUE COPY//
SE:CTION OFFICER
1. The Principal District Judge, [Nagarkurnool (with records, ][if any)]r AIR 2008 SUPRITML CtoUR't 2o3lr AIR 2008 SUPRITML CtoUR't 2o3l /
2. The Junior Civil Judge, at KollapurThe Junior Civil Judge, at Kollapur
3. One CC to Sri N Bhujanga Rao, Advocate tOpUCltOpUCl
4. One CC to Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy Kotha, Advocate tOpUClOne CC to Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy Kotha, Advocate tOpUCl
5. Two CD Copies
VA/gh
9. I
HIGH COURT
DATED:3111212024
\
JUDGMENTSA.No.435 of 2024
ALLOWNG THE APPEAL,{\v
1i1F: [S ][I.q],l!.\(,-a(:rollo1 3 riB [2025]i\ (q,>A ct-O
\