APHC010309392012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 576 OF 2012 Between: 1. Mattaparthi Nagaratnam, W/o Dhana Raju, aged 51 years, Occ; House wife, R/o Kotha Gaigolupadu, Sapota Garden, Near Rice Mill, Sarpavaram Road, Kakinada. 2. Mattaparthi Dhana Raju, S/o Chandra Rao, aged 55 years, Kotha Gaigolupadu, Sapota Garden, Near Rice Mill, Sarpavaram Road, Kalcinada. 3. Mattaparthi Suribabu (died). ...Appellants/Appellants/Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 AND 1. Pola Appala Narasamma,, W/o Appala Naidu, aged 46 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. ...Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Palika Ramesh, S/o Venkata Ramana, aged 42 years, Occ; Nagarjuna Bank Colony, Valasapakla, Near Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. 3. Guthula Pothuraju, S/o not known,aged 45 years, C/o Mattaparthi Dhanaraju, Kothaa Gaigolupadu(V) Sarpavaram, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. Appeal against Respondent Nos. 2 &3 are dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 03.04.2017 4. Ramanayyapeta Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary Mandal, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. 5. Ramanayyapeta Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Ramanayyapeta Kakinada. Kakinada Rural ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants 4 to 7 against the Decree and Judgment dated 29-02-2012 passed in A.S.No.109 of 2007 by the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, confirming the Decree dated 01.05.2007 passed in O.S.No.1143 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C and Judgment This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri T N M Ranga Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and decree as follows: 1. That the Second Appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the judgment and decrees of the both VII Additional Kakinada, East Godavari District and Principal Division), Kakinada, East Godavari District confirmed; 3. That each party be and is hereby directed to bear their second appeal. District Judge, Civil Judge(Junior be and hereby are own costs in the Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR // ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District I I? 2. The Principal Civil Judge{Junior Division), Kakinada, East Godavari District 3. Two CD Copies VNA ;| ■> , \ I HIGH COURT DATED: 06/08/2025 DECREE SA NO. 576 OF 2012 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL APHC010309392012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI .} ''S- ((^0 o S ■: WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 576 OF 2012 Appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C, against the Decree and Judgment dated 29-02-2012 passed in A.S.No.109 of 2007 by the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed in O.S.No.1143 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Between: 1. Mattaparthi Nagaratnam, W/o Dhana Raju, aged 51 years, Occ; House wife, R/o Kotha Gaigolupadu, Sapota Garden, Near Rice Mill Sarpavaram Road, Kakinada. 2. Mattaparthi Dhana Raju, S/o Chandra Rao, aged 55 years, Kotha Gaigolupadu, Sapota Garden, Near Rice Mill, Sarpavaram Road, Kalcinada. WJ ■tj HJ \ O /. J 3. Mattaparthi Suribabu (died). ...Appellants/Appellants/Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 AND 1. Pola Appala Narasamma, W/o Appala Naidu, aged 46 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. ...Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Palika Ramesh, S/o Venkata Ramana, aged 42 years, Occ: Nagarjuna Bank Colony, Valasapakla, Near Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. Guthula Pothuraju, S/o not known,aged 45 years, C/o Mattaparthi Dhanaraju, Kothaa Gaigolupadu(V) Sarpavaram, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. Appeal against Respondent Nos. 2 &3 are dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 03.04.2017 Ramanayyapeta Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. Ramanayyapeta Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants 4 to 7 lA NO11 OF 2012(SAMP 1290 OF 20121 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 suspend the operation of Decree and Judgment dated 29-02-2012 passed in A.S.No. 109 of 2007 by the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed in O.S.No. 1143 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of main appeal lA 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 for the records relating to the layout plan No.579/1986 of Ramanayyapeta Gram Panchayat including the alleged gift convincing deeds in favor of the Ramannayya gram panchayat through the 4' respondent in above appeal in SA.No.576 of 2012 call deeds are Counsel for the Appellants : Sri T N M Ranga Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad The Court made the following order: 3 VGKR, J. sa_576_2012 not concerned with the said layout. They did not encroach into any properties and did not trespass into the road, (b) It is further contended that the defendant filed a suit in - O.S.No.276 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for possession of a particular piece of land and obtained an ex parte decree on 22-10-1998 and in pursuance of the decree obtained, she executed the decree and obtained delivery of the property through Court. Ever since that time, the 1®* defendant has been in possession of the same in her own right. So, it is clear that the plaintiff has no right over Ac.0-50 cents of land wherein the plaintiff shows that there is 50 feet width of road. There is 10 feet width of site on the southern side of the site of defendants and that is being used by the plaintiff and others. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 9. The defendants 4 to 7 remained ex parte before the trial Court. 10. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the ' following issues for trial: (1) Whether the southern side road is in existence by the time of filing of the suit ? (2) Whether the plaintiff has any right in which the alleged road is present ? and (3) To what relief? 11. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 12. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit, thereby, the defendants 1 to 3 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.109 of 2007 the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, wherein the following points came up for consideration: Felt aggrieved on 4 ■ VGKR, J. sa_576 2012 1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Kakinada, in O.S.No.1143 of 1999, dated 01-5-2007 is to be set aside or not ? and 2) To what relief ? Junior 13. The learned VII Additional District Judge appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments against the defendants 1 to 3 and dismissed the Kakinada i.e., the first answered the points, as above, appeal filed by them. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.1143 of 1999 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 14. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad framed the following substantial questions of law; • appeal, on 12-9-2012, the at (1) Whether the Courts below have evidence while granting the injunction in favour of the plaintiff ? and (2) Whether the Courts below not properly appreciated the are justified in ignoring the proceedings in possession is said to and the present suit the earlier suit in O.S.No.276 of 1996, whereunder have been taken through Court by the appellants having been filed subsequent to that ? 15. Heard Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned defendants 1 to 3 and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu representing Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad, learned 1®* respondent/plaintiff. counsel for the appellants/ learned Senior Counsel counsel for the 16. In a second appeal under Section 100 of cannot substantiate its own CPC, the High Court opinion for that of first appellate Court unless the Court finds that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts being, (i) contrary to the mandatory are erroneous provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court or (iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence. 5 . VGKR, J. sa 576 2012 17. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and if the first appellate Court has exercised its discretion.in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error dither of law or of procedure requiring interference in a second appeal. 18. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that both the Courts below have, not properly appreciated the evidence on record while ■ granting the discretionary relief of- prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. As could be seen from the material on record, the present suit was filed for seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from ever interfering into the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is in a total extent of 875 sq. yards of house site. It is evident that the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The plaintiff claims to be owner of the plaint schedule property under the original of Ex.A-1 registered sale deed.. The recitals in Ex.A-1 go to show that the-plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under the original of Ex.A-1 registered sale deed. The registered sale deed is not at all disputed by the defendants. It is also evident that the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property is a 40 feet road. The southern boundary road is undisputed by the defendants. - The defendants contended that the width of the road is 10 feet only but not 40 feet as pleaded by the plaintiff. The material on record reveals that a layout plan under L.P.No.579/1986 was approved by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad. During the time of approval of layout in the year 1986, 40 feet road was laid by the Panchayat, which is situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. It is relevant to say that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1999 subsequent tojhe laying of \\ 6 VGKR, J. sa 576 2012 40 feet road by the Panchayat. The material available on record reveals that the southern side 40 feet road is the only way for ingress and egress to the plaintiff to proceed into the plaint schedule property. 19. The recitals in Ex.A-1 sale deed go to show that the plaintiff is owner of the plaint schedule property i.e. Plot Nos.1 to 4. P.W.3 is the owner of Plot Nos.9 and 10. P.W.3 supported the case of the plaintiff. According to P.W.3, when the defendants 1 to 3 tried to interfere with the southern side road of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit for seekirrg the relief of prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not claiming any exclusive right in 40 feet road situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. Moreover, she has got easementary right over the said road for ingress and egress into the plaint schedule property. 20. As stated supra, the suit schedule property is a vacant site in an extent of 875 sq. yards, the same is undisputed by the defendants. The plaintiff got title under Ex.A-1, registered sale deed . The schedule property in Ex.A-1 sale deed is tallied with the plaint schedule. The defendants are not disputing the title of the plaintiff. The contention of 1®' defendant is that she filed a suit against third parties, by name Chitturi Chandramma and Chitturi Mangamma and got decree of possession to the extent of the property in which B-schedule is land in Survey No. 186 in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in a total extent of Ac.4-04 cents. The appellants relied on Exs.B-1 to B-3. As could be seen from Ex.B-1, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.276 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for seeking the relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and the 1®* defendant obtained delivery of the property through the process of the Court, whereas Ex.A-22 certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.87 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, goes to show that one Penubothula Satyanarayana i.e. P.W.3 and the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare 7 ' VGKR, J. • sa_576_2012 that the ex parte decree obtained in O.S.No.276 of 1996 by the defendant on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, is a fraudulent and collusive one. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, decreed the said suit by holding that the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.276 of 1996 is a fraudulent and collusive one. Admittedly, Exs.B-1 to B-3 relate to the decree proceedings in O.S.No.276 of 1996. When the decree passed in O.S.No.276 of 1996 was declared as a fraudulent and collusive by the competent Court, therefore Exs.B-1 to B-3 are no way relevant to decide the subject matter of the suit and Exs.B-1 to B-3 relied on by the defendants 1 to 3 are no way support their case in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.87 of 2001 dated 27-4-2006 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 21. Since the 1^' defendant is a party to Ex.A-22 suit proceedings, therefore the decree passed in O.S.No.87 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada is binding on the defendants. It is relevant to say that the 2"^^ defendant is none other than the husband of 1® defendant and the defendant is the son of 1®' defendant. By virtue of Ex.A-1 sale deed, the plaintiff is having title in the plaint schedule property vacant site, therefore the possession follows title. The case of the defendants is that they got possession of Ac.0-50 cents through an ex parte decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court in O.S.No.276 of 1996 dated 22-10-1998, which was subsequently declared by the same Court i.e. I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada, on 27-4-2006 as a fraudulent and collusive one. For the aforesaid reasons, Exs.B-1 to B-3 proceedings relied on by the 1 defendants to prove their defence in the written statement. Moreover, the 1 defendant was examined as D.W.1. As per her evidence, she is unaware about the plaint schedule property and even she does not know the contents of her chie^^davit and she does not know the layout plan under Ex.A-21. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 is also no way useful to the defendants to defendant are no way useful to the s\ 8 VGKR, J. sa 576 2012 prove their defence. Moreover, in cross-examination, the learned counsel for plaintiff when elicited, the 1®^ defendant pleaded ignorance about the decree proceedings obtained against herself in the suit declaring that the decree passed in O.S.No.276 of 1996 is null and void. 22. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that both the Courts below ignored the proceedings in the earlier suit in O.S.No.276 of 1996 whereunder the possession is said to have been taken by the 1®* defendant. As stated supra, Exs.B-1 to B-3 proceedings are of no avail since Exs.B-1 to B-3 decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, was declared as null and void and the said decree had been obtained fraudulently. 23. In the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh^ the Apex Court held as follows: “11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.” In the case on hand, the defendants have not raised any genuine title dispute. The case of the appellants is that the 1®^ defendant came into possession of Ac.0-50 cents of the property, through process of the Court under Exs.B-1 to B-3. As noticed supra, the said decree proceedings under Exs.B-l to B-3 were declared by the competent Court that the 1®^ defendant obtained the said ex parte decree by way of collusion and fraudulently. Moreover, though the 1®* defendant relied on her self-testimony as D.W.1, as per her own statement, she does not even know the plaint schedule property and she does not know the layout plan under Ex.A-1 ■ 2024 Law Suit SC 157 9 VGKR.J. sa 576 2012 24. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit by granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the said finding. I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the learned first appellate Judge. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that Ex.A-1 registered sale deed is proved and genuine one and the plaintiff also proved possession in the plaint schedule property. The learned trial Judge as well as the learned first appellate Judge, on appreciation of entire,evidenceon record, came to conclusion that Ex.A-1 is proved. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said findings given by both the Courts below. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District (with records if any) The Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kakinada, East Godavari District One CC to Sri. T N M Ranga Rao Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED; 06/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA NO. 576 OF 2012 0 9 SEP 2025 )g ov SsXUjrrentSectigijX'^ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL