SECOND APPEAL 487 of 2015 on 16 September 1979

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is arising out of the [judgment ]dated 24.04.2015in A.S.No.l6 of2012,on the file of SeniorCivit Judge, Bhongir. Itis pertinent to mention that a common [judgment ]was passed by theSenior Civil Judge Court, Bhongir i.e., in A.S.No.16 of 2012 andA.S.No. l7 of 2012 which are arising out of the suit i.e., O.S.No.32o12003 on the frle of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed before the trial Court.

3. The appellants herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 2003 onthe file of Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet. The plaintiffs filed thesuit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The caseof the plaintiffs is that one Balagoni Pentaiah i.e, the father of l"plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff purchased the suit schedule propertiesfrom one Tadaka Chandraiah (father of defendant Nos.l to 3) on09.12.1973 and 16.09.1979 under unregistered sale deeds andpossession was also delivered (suit schedule properties bearing.

No.Sy.No.3l5. admeasuring .Ac. l-37 gts and admeasuring Ac.[3-33 gts in S1'.\o.290 of Nelapatla Village, Choutuppal Mandal,Nalgonda) to Balagoni Pe ntaiah. Further, Tadaka Chandraiahpromised to execute and regi:iter sale deeds in favour of theplaintiff Nos. I and 4 but postponed the matter from time to time. It. [is ][the ][further ][case ][ol ][the ][plaintiffs ][that they ][developed ][the]properties by investing hugc- anrounts and also obtained pattadarpassbooks in the year, l9l9 ztnd they are in possession of the suitschedule properties. As the det'endants are trying to interfere [with]their peaceful possession and tr"ring to dispossess them, they areconstrained to llle the suit and prayed to pass a decree in fbvour ofthe plaintifti;

4. On the orher hand. delcndanr Nos.l to 3 filed their detailedwritten statement which was adopted by the other defendants. It isthe specific case of the defendants that two unregistered sale deedsdated 09.12. 1 97i and 1 6.09. I [t)79 ]are forged and fabricated and that'Tadaka Chandraiah never sold the property to the father of theplaintiff Nos. I and 4 and lurther the plaintiffs managed to entertheir names in the revenue records. The alleged documents are inadmissible in law, fbr [,,r,ant ]of registration and stamp duty andpra5red to disiniss the suit as dcvoid of merits.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court lramed the followingISSUeS:- I . Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration - asprayed for?prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their title over thesuit schedule land by adverse possession?suit schedule land by adverse possession?

3. Whethel the plaintiffs are entitled for permanentinjunction as prayed for?injunction as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to performtheir part of contract and are entitled for the benefit underSection 53-A ofTransfer ofProperty Act, as prayed for?their part of contract and are entitled for the benefit underSection 53-A ofTransfer ofProperty Act, as prayed for?

5. To what reliefl

6. On behatf of plaintiffs, PWs.l to I I were examined andExs.A-l to A-47 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.l to3 were examined and Exs. B- I to B- I 8 were marked.

7. On considering the entire oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the trial Courl partly decreed the suit grantingpermanent injunction in f-avour of the plaintiffs, restraining thedefendants and tl-reir men from interfering with peaceful possession and enioylnent 01' the plaintill's over the suit schedule propertiesand dismissed the reliel'declaring the ptaintiffs as owners of thepropefty.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the defbndants filed an Appealvide A.S.No.l 7 of 2012 for granting injunction in favour of ti.replaintiffs. Likewise, being aggrieved by the [judgrnent ]and decreeof the trial Courr, the plaintilfs also preferred an Appeal videA.S.No.16 of 2012 for dismissing the relief for declaration of title.The l't appellate Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir heard both.the [appeals together ][and ][frarned ][the point ][for ][consideration ][as]under:- "Whetl.rer the [judgment ]and decree dated23.07 .2012 delivered by the lower Court issuffered from any iregularity or itlegality."

9. On considering the entire material on record, the fnst appellate Court has dismissed A.S.No.16 of 2012 confirming thejudgment of the trial Court, in O.S.No.32 of 2003 to the extent ofdisentitlement of the plaintiffs, lbr relief of declaration of title inrespect of suit schedule prope(ies. Further, allowed the appeal suiti.e., A.S.No.l7 of 2012 in pan, by dismissing the relief for perpetual injunction sought by the [plaintifls, ][over ][item ][No-2 ][of ][the]suit schedule property i.e., the land in Sy.No.290 [for ][the ][judgment]and decree dated 23.07.2012 in O.S.No.3Z of [2003 ][was ][thereby]setaside. As far as the item No. I of the suit schedule [property ][is]concemed i.e., Sy.No.3 I 5 to an extent of Ac. I -37 [gts, ][perpetual ]-injunction granted in favour oI the plaintiffswastherebvconfirmed.

10. Being aggrieved by the [judgment ]and decree in A.S.No.l6 of2012, llte plaintifls lrave pret-erred thc present Second Appeal withthe following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the judgment and decree passed by thetrial Court in not granting relief of declaration based onthe Exs.Al & A2 is contrary to the evidence and vitiate,since there is a clear finding that the appellants werevalid purchasers for consideration, it could have passeddecree of specific performance of c<intract taking aid ofthe shelter U/S 54 of Transfer of Property Act andSection 17 of the Registration Act?

(b) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in setaside the trial Court [judgment ]and decree whileallowing panly by granting perrnanent injunction inrespect of suit schedule property to the appellant basedon Exs.A-l to A-25 is contrary to the pleadings andevidence without their being any explanation?

(c) Whether the linding of the learned Senior Judge isvitiated by making additional issue regarding that theplaintift's are not exprcssed the ready and rvilling toperfbrm their part of contract and they are not entitledthe benetit ol U/S 53 ol TP Act is vitiated since there isno such averments hencc the additional issue is contrarvto law.

(d) Is the appellant court is right is set asiding thejudgment and decree of the trial court which was partlyallowed by way ol granting permanent injunction basedon the prime facie and titled to the suit scheduledproperty, possession as on the date of the filing ol thesuit till to date and balance of convenience irreparablelaws which are mandatorl' Under Order 39 ol CPC?

I l. l.

I l. l. On perusal o1'the substantial questions of lau, as raised bythe appellants helein, this Corrrl is of the considered view that thesame relate to the concurrent llndings of fact by both the Courtsbelow but not on lar.r'. The scope under Section 100 of CPC is verylimited. In a Second Appeal, if the High Court is satisfied that thecase involves a substantial qirestion of law, then only, the Courtcan interfere with the orders of the Courts below. F-urther more,the substantial qtrestion of lau, raised by the appellants is onSection 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'theAct') and Section l7 of the Registration Act, 1908.

12. As per Section 54 of the Act:-

"Sale'' defined. "Sale" is a transf'er ol ou'nership inexchange lor a price paid or pronriscd or part-paid and [part-]prornised. Sale how rnadc. 3Suoh transt'cr, in the case oftangible irnmoveablo properly cll the value of one [hundred]rupees and uprvards. or in thc case of a revcrsion or otherintangible thing, can be made only by a registeredinstrument. I In the case of tangible immoveable property ofa value less than one hundred rupees. such transfer may [be]made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of [the]exchange lor a price paid or pronriscd or part-paid and [part-]prornised. Sale how rnadc. 3Suoh transt'cr, in the case oftangible irnmoveablo properly cll the value of one [hundred]rupees and uprvards. or in thc case of a revcrsion or otherintangible thing, can be made only by a registeredinstrument. I In the case of tangible immoveable property ofa value less than one hundred rupees. such transfer may [be]made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of [the]property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takesplace *,hen the seller places thc bu,u-.er. or such person as hedirects. in possession of the propertv. Contract for sale.-Acontract lor the sale ol' imrnovcable propefly is a contractthat a sale of such property shall take placc on tcrms scttlcdbetween thc parties. It does not. ol itself. create any interestin or charge on such propcrty."directs. in possession of the propertv. Contract for sale.-Acontract lor the sale ol' imrnovcable propefly is a contractthat a sale of such property shall take placc on tcrms scttlcdbetween thc parties. It does not. ol itself. create any interestin or charge on such propcrty."

13. The most important ingredient under Section 54 of the Act is

13. The most important ingredient under Section 54 of the Act is that in a case of any tangible immovable property of a value lessthan Rs.100/-, such transfer must be rnade either by registeredinstrument or by delivering the property. In the present case, theplaintiffs are relying on the two unregistered documents which are [-]to be compulsorily registered as per Section 54 of the Act.than Rs.100/-, such transfer must be rnade either by registeredinstrument or by delivering the property. In the present case, theplaintiffs are relying on the two unregistered documents which are [-]to be compulsorily registered as per Section 54 of the Act.Moreover, Section I 7 of the Registration Act, 1908 clearlyenvisages that the documents pertaining to immovable property are.to be registered. Therefore, the plaintifti cafftot claim the relief fordeclaration of title, basing on the unregistered documents coveredenvisages that the documents pertaining to immovable property are.to be registered. Therefore, the plaintifti cafftot claim the relief fordeclaration of title, basing on the unregistered documents covered tl G..t(, .ts.A.No.4a7 of 20t S

under Exs.A- I and A-2. Moreover, the t" appellate Couft havcgiven a linding that the plaintiflis are not in possession ol item No.2of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. [na suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff's have tosucceed only on the strength ol their own title and it could be doneonly by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it,irrespective of the question rvhether the defendants have proved- [their ][case ][or not and ][further, ][it ][is for ][the ][plaintiffs ][to ][prove ][that they]are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date ofti ling of the suit.

14. In the present case, both the Courts below have givenconcurrent finding that the plaintiffs are not entitled lor declarationof title and fuither the relief fbr injunction was granted by the firstappellate Court to the plaintiffs only with respect to item No.l ofsuit schedule property. Therefore, on the fact findings it is notproper to interfcre with the orders of the Courts below in theabsence of substantial question of law. Therefore, the SecondAppeal deserves to be dismissed -- i I

15. Accordingly, the Second Appeal [is ]dismissed at the [stage ]oladmission as devoid of nrerit, confirning the comnton [judglnent]passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Bhongir in A.S.No. l6 oi2012 dated 24.04.2015. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standclosed.

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR

Note: This order is amended as per Court Order,dated 06.02.2023 in l.A.No.1 of 2023. Corrected asItem No.2 instead of ltem No.1 in page No.8 2"dline of the Judgment & ltem No.l instead of ltemNo.2 4tn line of paragraph No.14.

This corrected order substituted the earlierorder which was dispatched on 013.01.2023.

SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEJOINT REGISECTIONFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1 . The Senior Civil Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda Elistrict (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

3. One CC to Sri J.Venkateshwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

BSPflh=._-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210912022DATED: 0610212023

AMENDED JUDGMENT

S.A.No.487 of 2015

DISMISSING THE S.A.

AT THE ADMISSION STAGE,

WITHOUT COSTS

t)A^La9bt

1$E [STA]Iq'Lj*q-J>ot)O CI FEB [?08]I'l{i.t