SA/724/2026 of Puli Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Thati Nageswara Rao on 17 September 2026

ORDER:

This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the Appellants / Defendants.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 224 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Proddatur for perpetual injunction from ever interfering with the suit schedule property by the defendants or their henchmen on the ground the appellants /defendants have sold the suit schedule properties including item No.3 referred to as “ABCD” rasta vide registered sale deed dated 11.06.1979 as per the plaint plan and the government has developed the property and laid public road on west of “AC” points since then the “ABCD” schedule property has been enjoying and there is no right or usage by the defendant what so ever.

3. The appellants/defendants’ contention is that the plaintiffs have not filed the correct plan along with the plaint that does not reflect the real topographical features, in-fact to the west of the “AC” of plaint plan there is rastha running North-South with a width of 18 feet and the said rastha was in existence since time immemorial and plaintiffs did not whisper about rastha in the plaint plan. The senior paternal uncle and father of the defendants including these defendants are agriculturalists and even prior to the sale deed dated 11.06.1979 that executed by the senior paternal uncle of the defendants i.e., Puli Lakshmi Rddy, they are passing through the plaint schedule property in order to reach the public rastha which is situated on the western side of the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the said rastha was being exercised by these defendants even prior to 1976 till today as of easementary right over the land of plaint schedule property.

4. The trial Court has framed the issues “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? and to what relief. Both the plaintiff and the defendants have examined their witnesses and marked respective documents. The trial Court has decreed the suit inter alia observing that the plaintiffs able to prove that the defendants are trying to remove the boundary stones by creating rastha for that there is no rastha through the land of plaintiffs towards west, where the defendants failed to disprove the case of the plaintiffs and granted permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 in O.S. No. 224 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Proddatur, the appellants / defendants has filed regular appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. vide A.S. No. 17 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge Proddatur. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal observing inter alia that the plaintiffs successfully proved their case coupled with both the oral and documentary evidence. Furthermore, the plaintiffs explicitly demonstrated that the appellants/defendants have tried to create rastha over the suit schedule property, despite having no easementary rights over the suit schedule property and the Court found no logic reason to disbelieve the evidence of the respondents / plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023.

6. Now the present Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2026 in A.S. No. 17 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, on the following substantial grounds: “Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below is sustainable in view of commissioner was not examined, the same may be looked into same as part and parcel of the Court record. The Commissioner clearly mentioned in his report that there was a pipeline in the suit schedule property through which one of the appellants are drawing water through the underneath pipeline from west side to east side? Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below is sustainable that the right of the appellants that they are entitled to pass through the suit schedule property from their property to reach the western side rastha situated to the west of the suit schedule property as per the document of Ex.A.2 which is a original registered sale deed dated 11.06.1979? Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below is sustainable that the right of the appellants that they are passing through the plaint schedule property in order to reach the public rastha which is situated on the western side of plaint schedule property and the said rastha was being exercised by the appellants even prior to the 1976 till today as of easementary right as per the sale deed dated 11.06.1979 under Ex.A.2 refered by the Plaintiffs?”

7. Supreme Court, in Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi (2016) 3 SCC 78, referring to Kulwant Kaur Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC 262, Gurvachan Kaur Vs. Salikram (2010) 15 SCC 530 and S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602 held, (a) that the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC is the last Court of facts; (b) the High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC; (c) the findings of fact of First Appellate Court can be challenged in Second Appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse; (d) even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law; the wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjunctures and surmises; (e) if to a reasonable man, the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the Courts below is possible, there is no perversity; (f) inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity; (g) Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced a definite restriction on the exercise of jurisdiction in a Second Appeal; (h) where it is found that findings stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjunctures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, will the High Court be within its jurisdiction to deal with the issue; this is however only in the event such a fact is brought to light explicitly; (i) the findings of fact recorded by Court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant / inadmissible material or if the findings is against the weight of evidence or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from vice of irrationality; (j) however if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusion would not be treated as perverse and the findings will not be interfered with.

8. Pursuant to the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments, the formulated questions not give rise to any substantial question of law to interfere with the findings recorded by the fact finding Courts. No substantial grounds are set out in the Second Appeal.

9. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 18.09.2026 Harin

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

S.A.No. 724 OF 2026

Date: 18-09-2026

Harin