SA/205/2019 of ALLAM UPENDRA Vs V. RAMACHADER RAO on 31 December 2024

JUDGMENT:

I have heard Mr pitta Srinivasa Reddy, learned ccrunsel forthe appellant/plaintiff, onadmission and also heardMr.Yellapragada SrinivasaMurthy, learned counsel lor therespondenUdefendant.

2.

2. This apperalis filed assailing the decreeand judgmentdated 1 ['t ]06 201 9in A.S.No.3 of 2017 passedby the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Warangal, whereby the decree andjudgment dated ilti i 1.2016 in O.S.No..t312 of 2OOB on the.fite oflearned Principal .Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, has been affirmed.

3 fhe appellaqt' as plaintiff filed the suit vr'de o s No 1312 or2008 seeking perpr-'l tla; injunction [against the ][respondenUdefe ][ndant]over the suit [scheclule ][property ][i.e' ][open land ][admeasuring ][82]square [yards ][adjac€)nt ][to ][House ][bearing ][No"l-42 ][in ][Sy ][Nos ][2rJ4lE]and 205, [situatecl ][at ][Bheemaram ][of ][Ramaram, ][Hasanparthy]Manda\, [Vtlarang][ a\ ][t)istrict ][({or ][short'the ][subiect ][propertv')]

::::-""r'::l; [-]

the [case ][t:]4::::'#I':: had [Pur]that [he]

yards [joining ][to ][his ][house under ][a ][deed ][dated ][01 ][05'1982 and ][in]unison [he ][paid Rs'200/- ][as an ][advance ][and later paid ][remaining]sale [consideration ][and his ][vendor ][delivered possession ][of ][the]subiect [property ][Since ][then' ][the ][entire ][land ][is in ][his ][possession]and [enjoyment ][Further' the ][plaintiff ][constructed residential ][house']for [which ][the ][Grampanchayath assigned House No 1-42 ][and ][he ][is]paying [property ][tax' ][The ][respondent/defendant ][(hereinafter ]['the]defendant') [without any right ][or ][interest over ][the ][subiect ][property]interfering [with ][his ][possession ][Thus' ][the ][suit ][for ][pelpetual]injunction [']

The [[defendant ][contested ]][[contested ]][that' ][the original own6r Ranga ][Rao]

5. The [[defendant ][contested ]][[contested ]]had [gifted 845 ][square yards ][of ][land including ][the ][subiect ][property]under [registered gift deed ][in ][1984' ][Since ][then' ][he is ][in ][possession]and [enjoyment ][of ][the ][property ][However' the plaintiff ][wtlh ][mala ][fide]intention [created ][the ][document ][styling simple ][sale ][deed ][and]claiming [tifle and ][possession over ][the ][property, ][which is ][obviousry]unsustainable [under law']

The trial [[Court ][on ][considering ]][[on ][considering ]][[considering ]][[the ][materials ][held ][that ][the]][[materials ][held ][that ][the]][[held ][that ][the]][[that ][the]][[the]]

6. The trial [[Court ][on ][considering ]][[on ][considering ]][[considering ]][[the ][materials ][held ][that ][the]][[materials ][held ][that ][the]][[held ][that ][the]][[that ][the]][[the]]to [prove possession and enjoyment over ][the ][subject]plaintiff failed property, hence, [declined the suit claim']

3NTR,JJAA,o 205 of 2O19

7 ' Aggrieverd thereby the plaintiff preferred appear yrck,A.s.No.3of 2017' on 'e'-appreciation, the first appellate court arso recordedsimilar conclusions and dismissed the appeal suit. Challenging thefirst appellate Court,s judgment, the plaintiff filed this SecondAppeal.of 2017' on 'e'-appreciation, the first appellate court arso recordedsimilar conclusions and dismissed the appeal suit. Challenging thefirst appellate Court,s judgment, the plaintiff filed this SecondAppeal.

8Learned ctunsel for the plaintiff would submit that the, plaintiffhad purchased -he subject property from the original ovyner andfor the plaintiff would submit that the, plaintiffhad purchased -he subject property from the original ovyner andpayment of corrsideration was also acknowledged under rr:ceiptsThe praintiff consiructed house, obtained was also acknowledged under rr:ceiptsThe praintiff consiructed house, obtained erectricity connectidri andregularly paying the tax to the Grampanchayath and these aspectsare proofs of his tossession over the subject property. Hr),urrever,the Courts belorv disregarded the documents and ther oraltestimonies placed on behalf of the plaintiff and erred in conr:ludingthat the plaintiff is r,ot in possession of the subject property. On theother hand, contr:rrded that the gift setflement deed and otherdocuments filed b,l the defendant are created to defeat his inbrest.andregularly paying the tax to the Grampanchayath and these aspectsare proofs of his tossession over the subject property. Hr),urrever,the Courts belorv disregarded the documents and ther oraltestimonies placed on behalf of the plaintiff and erred in conr:ludingthat the plaintiff is r,ot in possession of the subject property. On theother hand, contr:rrded that the gift setflement deed and otherdocuments filed b,l the defendant are created to defeat his inbrest.Thus, prayed for reconsideration and intervention.

9. During pen,Jr>ncy. the plaintiff filed a [/emo along with11 05.2O09 [and]construction [perrnission ][and ][approved ][plan ][dated]establishieg [-his]vehemently [pleaded ][that ][these ][documents ][are]also Placr:'C [the]possession [over ][the ][subiect ][prope(y ][He]

authorities [between ][K'R'subrahmanyam and ][another ][v' ][A'Raja]Reddf [and ][Kaheeda ][Moin ][and ][others ][v' ][Md'tqbal ][Ati ][and]others2of [the erstwhile ][High ][court ][of ][Andhra ][Pradesh and pleaded]that [the ][admissibility ][of ][unregistered ][document ][for ][collateral]purpose [and ][proving possession ][has ][been approved' ][thus' ][basing]on [the ][materials ][placed ][on ][record' ][the ][suit claim ][to ][the ][extent ][of]inlunction [should have been allowed']

10. [Per ][contra' learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][defendant ]'"'0":'tn1the [Courts ][below have ][properly considered ][the ][oral ][and]documentary [evidence ][praced by ][the ][praintiff ][and ][in ][the ][absence ][of]any [particular material proving ][possession ][over ][lthe ][subject]property, [the suit was ][rightty ][dismissed ][He ][further ][contested ][that]bringing [documents on ][to ][record by way ][of ][Memo ][is ][improper ][and]against [the ][procedure ][Further' ][the ][documents ][filed with the ][Memo]are of [the year, 2009' which ][are after ][filing the suit and the ][plaintiff]has to [prove ][possession over ][the ][subject property ][by ][the date ][of]suit. [Thus, ][on any ][respect' ][the ][documents placed along ][with]filing lVlemo cannot [be ][looked into, as they were not placed ][before ][the]trial or [first ][aPPellate ][Courts']

' [zoo2 ][(5) ][ALT ][404 ][(s.8.)]'? [rgge ][(s) nLo ][s:r]'? [rgge ][(s) nLo ][s:r]

11 . I have r;onsidered the submissions of the learned counseland perused the record.r;onsidered the submissions of the learned counseland perused the record.

12 ln this [rosition, the aspect for determination would whether the ()ourts bebelow have considered the oral anddocumentary erv idence in proper perspective in a'iving at theconclusions and whether any substantial question of law rs madeout for considerat jon.

13. As per the plaintiff, he had purchased Ac.0_06 gts., o1. land inSy.No.204lE of 13heemaram Village and to make it a contiiousplot, he purchased g2 square yards of land from its owner V RangaRao. Admittedry, tire sale transaction was under simpie sare deed.It is settled posilion that untir the essential requirements underStamps and Regis;tr-ation Act are complied, transmission of tifle witlnot be complete. t is also admitted that the subject property isvacant site abutting lhe house of the plaintiff.

14. At hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff has asserte<i thatduring the penden,:v of suit they have raised shed. Howsoever,thgfe iS nO materia to show such construction or the plaintiff,sp0SSgSSiOn [OVer ][it ][-thus' ][the subiect property has ][to ][be considered]as open [land ][abuttir'g the ][house ][of ][the ][plaintiff ][']

o

15. [Howsoever' ][before the trial ][Court' to ][establish ][his ][possession]over [the ][sublect property' ][the ][plaintiff ][had ][placed original ][pattadar]pass [book and ][title deed/Exs'A-1 ][and A-2'Pahani/Ex'A-3' ][demand]receipt [of ][electricity ][bill/Ex ][A-1 ][1]notice [of ][Grampanchayath/Ex.A-7, ]and [also electricity ][billiEx'A-12' ][All these ][documents ][are ][pertaining]to the [land ][of ][plaintiff in Sy'No'204/E ][and ][the house constructed ][by]him [therein ][and ][none ][of ][them ][in ][any way ][establishing ][the]possession [of ][the ][plaintiff over ][the ][subject property ][i'e' ][82 ][square]

yards.

'16. Further, [the ][plaintiff filed ][two ][documents by ][way of ][Memo ][in]this Appeal. [As ][rightly ][pointed ][out ][by ][the ][learned c6unsel ][for ][the]defendant [that those ][documents ][are ][of ][the year' 2009' which ][is]after filing [of ][the ][suit ][Additionally' ][there is ][no ][explanation as to why]the [plaintiff ][could not ][place these documents ][either ][before ][trial ][or]first appellate [Courts ][That ][apart, ][filing ][of ][Memo ][to ][bring ][in ][the]documents on [to ][record ][is ][not proper' ][as ][it ][is ][contravening ][the]procedure as [prescribed ][under Order ][XLI ][Rule ][27 ][of the ][Civil]Procedure Code, [1908. ][Nonetheless, ][the ][appellant ][has not ][even]stated a word [explaining ][the ][essential ][requirements ][given ][in ][the]provision. Even otherwise, [the ][documents ][are ][pertaining ][to ][the]construction within [the ][undisputed ][premises ][of ][the ][plaintiff']

7s . A ,\t t NTR,J2OS of 2019

Iherefore, ever by th,

the of possession subject prop,efty,. ,"t" rot being ['o""ents, ]refrected. [the ][fact]over

17. ln the atrove notetuar position bv and the documents the plaintiff, fired,u" ,r".:1,:,^ conclusion that can be drawn praintiff faitedto is, theprove n,rtt'o'" r possession over the subject property.19. The well setfled position is that in ftte absence ctf particular and anylegerlry acceptable material estabrishing possession,the possession has to be presumed basing on the tifle, jr otherwords, the party with tiue over the disputed ,r"r"nr.r;"";property, shall be herld as in possession. This propositron has beenfortified by the Hon'ble Apex court in the authority lt anat,*aSudhakar v. p.Buc:hri Reddy (dead) by LRs and others3.

19. ln this conte>I the ptaintiff had admitted that one V.RangaRao is the owner of the subject property and he purchased thesame under simple sarle deed. On the other hand, the defendant isclaiming tifle over tre subject property under registered gift deedexecuted by the ownrlr of the subject property i.e. V.Ranga Rao.This situation is making out regal tiile in favour or the derendantThat [being ][the ][actuality ][and ][in ][the ][absence ][of ][anv ][evidence]

t 12OOA1 [+ ][SuPreme ][couri ][f;ases][ 594]12OOA1 [+ ][SuPreme ][couri ][f;ases][ 594]

B

C\

showing [plaintiffls possession over ][the ][subiect property' ][it ][shatl be]held [that ][the ][Courts below ][have ][considered ][the ][facts ][in ][law ][tn]proper [perspective ][in ][determining ][the suit ][claim' ][Therefore' ][no]irnpropriety [is ][found ][in the ][impugned ][iudgment' ][much ][less' ][any]substantial [question ][o{ law ][for ][consideration ][in ][the ][Second ][Appeal']Thus, [this ][appeal ][fails ][on merit and is liable to be ][dismissed']

20. [Accordingly' the ][Second Appeal is ][dismissed' ][No ][order ][as ][to]

costs.

As [a ][sequel, ][pending miscellaneous ][applications' ][if ][any' ][sh]

J SdIK.SLESHIREG[STRAR]DEPUTYSECTION [OFFICER]

/[RUE [COPY//]

To

DL[i ][15 ]o[g ][;p,.[t;#*#t*illt# ][fifi ][" ][:"]

o

\\

HIGH COURT

DATED31t12t2024

JUDGMENT

SA.No.205 of 2O19

DISMISSING THE S.A.

1HE [S'l-'r\f]ott2ffiJ?4 [l'lrF],\**.r-)DF5 p41 r ,\\