APHC010255182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 365/2025 Between: 1. SIRIBARIKI VENKATA RAO,, S/O LATE RAMAYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO 3-2-11, ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AND ALL RESIDING AT MURAKAPU VILLAGE LAVERU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. ARUBARIKI APPA RAO, S/O LATE APPALA RAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 40, YEARS, R/O OF D.NO.4-2-11, S.C. COLONY, ETCHERLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DONKA LAXMI, W/O. CHAKRADAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO.5-2-11, BEHIND NEW POLICE STATION, RANASTHALAM VILLAGE ANDMANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. DONKA CHAKRADHAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.8-2-11, ARMY SOLDIER IN SERVICE, RAMASTHALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. PATNANA MASHEED MAHESH, S/O LATE SURAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-8-42, CIVIL SUPPLIED DEALER, RANASTHALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section 100 of CPC against orders pleased to allow the Second Appeal, by duly setting aside the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No. 28 of 18, dated 18.03.2025, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, at Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No. 174 of 2012, dated 08-01-2028, on the file of the Court of the Principle Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendants not to alienate/create any third-party interest in respect of the plaint schedule property deny the pendency of the Second Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. This Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT Plaintiff in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018 in O.S.No.174 of 2012 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025 in A.S.No.28 of 2018 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. 2. a) Plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that the plaintiff’s grandfather acquired Ac.0.06 cents of land from the ancestral nucleus. During the lifetime of plaintiff’s father, he was recognised as landless poor; as such, the Government granted D-Patta for Ac.0.04 cents in S.No.8/8, which is adjacent to the ancestral property. The plaintiff and his father have been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.10 cents. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 2006. The plaintiff, being the sole legal representative, inherited the property. b) The 1st defendant is doing real estate, the 3rd defendant is a defence personnel, the 2nd defendant is the wife of the 3rd defendant, and the 4th defendant is a fair price shop dealer. The defendants 1 to 4 have nothing to do with the suit schedule land, however, they tried to grab the same. The defendants 1 to 4 made attempts to tamper with the revenue records; however, they failed in their attempts. The defendants 1 to 4 approached the plaintiff to alienate the schedule property to the 2nd defendant; however, the plaintiff refused to alienate the same. The 1st defendant fabricated some bogus documents relating to the suit schedule land. The plaintiff never executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of defendants 1 and 4 or any collateral securing bonds. 3. a) The 1st defendant filed a written statement, and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 4. The 3rd defendant remained exparte. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant, it was contended, inter alia, that the wife of the 1st defendant, Alivelu Mangamma, purchased an extent of Ac.0.03 cents on 29.06.1999 under Grama Krayachiti from the father of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff signed as second executant in the said document. They handed over possession to the wife of 1st defendant, and ever since, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Page 4 of 6 b) As per the No.3 adangal filed by the plaintiff, Ac.0.04 cents under D-Form patta land is in the name of Akkavarapu Appayya, S/o Ramappadu, and the same is in the enjoyment of Siribariki Ramayya, the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. During the trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. The 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. 5. The Trial Court recorded by judgment and decree dated 08.01.2018, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal A.S.No.28 of 2018. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, the present second appeal is filed. 6. Heard Sri B.Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for appellant. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. He would also submit that Ex.B2 Grama Krayachiti dated 26.06.1997 is inadmissible; however, the Courts below failed to consider the said aspect. 8. The plaintiff’s case is that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and he succeeded to the estate of his father, being the legal representative. Plaintiff further pleaded that his father acquired Ac.0.06 cents from the ancestral nucleus and Ac.0.04 cents by way of D-Patta land. Ex.A.1 adangal filed by the plaintiff in respect of Ac.0.04 cents in S.No.8-8, D-Patta stands in the name of Akkavarapu Appayya, S/o Ramappadu, however, the name of the plaintiff’s father is shown against the column enjoyer and possessor. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.10 cents; however, Ex.A-1 adangal reflects Ac.0.04 cents. 9. It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff has to prove possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and the plaintiff cannot depend upon the latches in the defendant’s case. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over Ac.0.10 cents. The appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, also recorded the finding that the plaintiff, as per his evidence, had in possession Ac.0.04 cents only, but not Ac.0.10 cents. 10. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and pleaded about his wife purchasing Ac.0.03 cents from the father of the plaintiff under Ex.B2 Grama Krayachiti for a valuable consideration on 29.06.1997, and the said document is an unregistered one. The said document was sent to the District Registrar for the collection of deficit stamp duty, and the same has been collected by the District Registrar. A certificate was issued under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. In fact, the appellate Court also considered the legal aspect that if the property is part of assigned land, the District Registrar would have raised an objection when the document was sent for collection of the deficit stamp duty. The appellate Court observed that the property was not placed under the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The appellate Court, being a final fact-finding Court, also recorded the finding that the plaintiff failed to show possession over the suit schedule property, on appreciation of evidence. Page 6 of 6 11. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, must confine itself to the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below where the Courts below have exercised the discretion judicially. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the Courts are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. If the findings are based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider relevant evidence High Court, under Section 100 of CPC can interfere. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and it does not call for any interference of this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. This Court finds no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, involved in the present second appeal. Hence, the second appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed, however, without costs. 13. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is Dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD