APHC010495282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL No: 682 of Between: Kola Narayana & Others Gundra Satyanarayana & Others Counsel for the Appellants: 1. Mr.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL No: 682 of 2024 ...APPELLANTS AND Gundra Satyanarayana & Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: NJS, J SA_682_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ...APPELLANTS ...RESPONDENTS 2 NJS, J SA_682_2024 The Court made the following Judgment: The appellants who are the unsuccessful defendants, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22.07.2024 in A.S.No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2018 in O.S.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, filed the present Second Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the material on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.185 of 2010 seeking to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants, their men and henchmen restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Old Survey No.60, New R.S.No.60/2 of Durgada Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. 5. In the plaint, they inter alia stated that 1st and 2nd plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit schedule property from one Sadhanala Veeramma and three others under a Registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.2010 vide Document No.1827/2010, obtained possession and enjoying the same with peaceful possession and absolute rights. They also claim that they have applied for 3 NJS, J SA_682_2024 pattadar pass books and title deed in respect of the suit schedule property, that the defendants who are having lands towards western side of the plaint schedule property are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property highhandedly, that having no other go, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit against the defendants. 6. The 2nd defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption from anybody, that the vendors of the plaintiffs are not having any right to sell the subject matter property to the plaintiffs, that the defendants are enjoying the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. It was specifically asserted that the 1st defendant is in exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property even by the date of the Registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.1965, which was executed in favour of one Smt.Sattamma, that the said Sale Deed is a nominal Sale Deed. The defendants 2 to 5 also pleaded that they acquired title by adverse possession and mere injunction suit without the prayer for declaration is not maintainable in Law. 7. Basing on the pleadings of the respective parties, the Trial Court formulated the following issues for adjudication: 1. Whether the plaintiff’s are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 4 NJS, J SA_682_2024 2. Whether the defendants have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s over the suit schedule property without any manner of right? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 4. To what relief? 8. To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and no documents were marked. 9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court while referring to the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.2010 (Ex.A1), that pattadar pass books and title deed as also No.3 Adangal were issued in their favour vide Exs.A2 to A7 and taking into consideration the admissions of the D.W.1 (D2) in the cross examination that they did not file any document to establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as also that they are not in possession of the same since 10 years, recorded a finding that the suit schedule property is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, but not in the possession of the defendants as contended by them. Insofar as the plaintiffs’ case of purchasing the suit schedule property under Ex.A1-Registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.2010 and mutation of their names in 5 NJS, J SA_682_2024 the revenue records vide Exs.A2 to A7, the learned Trial Court held that the defendants did not file any cogent and convincing evidence to nullify Ex.A1. 10. Referring to Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and drawing the presumption in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned Trial Court observed that the defendants did not file any document to rebut the presumption. Further, while opining that nothing significant could be elicited to annul the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 in their lengthy cross examination and to impeach their credit worthiness, the learned Trial Court categorically held that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is believable and acceptable. Accordingly, while holding that P.Ws.1 and 2 are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the Trial Court decreed the suit by granting perpetual injunction as prayed for. 11. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree dated 13.07.2018, the defendants filed A.S.No.61 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. The learned Appellate Court, after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and the material on record formulated the following points for consideration: 1.Whether the defendants has to prove the legal possession as on the date of filing of the suit over the plaint schedule property? 2.Whether the trial Court has committed any illegality or irregularity in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.185/2010 dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pithapuram, and there by this Court warrants 6 NJS, J SA_682_2024 interference with the findings and observations made by the trial Court while delivering the judgment, dt.13.07.2018? 3. To what relief? 12. The learned Appellate Court, after examining the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 both oral and documentary and observing that the defendants did not file any documentary proof with regard to possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, recorded the following findings: “7.On perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff Ex.A1 is original Registered Sale Deed purchased by the plaintiffs jointly from Sadanala Veramma and 3 others, wherein they categorically mentioned in the said recitals of Sale Deed the said property establish belongs to mother of the vendor of the plaintiff by name Sattemma which she purchased through a Registered Sale Deed, dt.17.04.1965 vide Doc.No.785/1965. Further, as seen from the recitals of Ex.A.1 reveals that the property was genuine on the date of execution of Ex.A.1. In the cross examination of P.W.1 and 2, it was elicited about the vendors relationship. So, it is a fact that the vendor of the plaintiff and got absolute rights over the plaint schedule property. As such, they executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendant denied the Registered Sale Deed which was registered under Ex.A1 the burden is heavily lies on the defendant to prove that it is sham and nominal document as per the Registration Act, there is every presumption under registered documents.” 13. So far as the contentions advanced with reference to Exs.A2 to A7, the learned Appellate Court while noting that the same were obtained during the pendency of the suit, relying on the decision in K.Pratap Reddy v. Joint Collector, Lakadikapol, Hyderabad1, recorded a finding that the defendants 1 2009 (2)2 ALT 742 7 NJS, J SA_682_2024 did not dispel the presumption that every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true till the contrary is proved. Further, referring to the cross examination of D.W.1 (D2) wherein, he categorically stated that he is aware of the fact that the plaintiff got executed a document nine years back and that they did not approach either the Court or Revenue Authorities for cancellation of the Sale Deed, that no documentary evidence was filed to prove that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, except their oral evidence, as also that no revenue authorities were summoned to prove that the revenue records stands in the name of the 1st defendant, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff established his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 14. Assailing the said orders, the learned counsel for the appellants made submissions to impress upon this Court that in view of the substantial questions of Law, the matter merits admission. He, inter alia, contended that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to establish their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and as such not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. He submits that the Courts below erred in not considering the plea of the defendants that the Sale Deed dated 17.04.1965 is a sham and nominal document and as such the plaintiffs will not get right, title or possession by virtue of the said document much less Ex.A1, in the proper perspective. He also made submissions with reference to the substantial 8 NJS, J SA_682_2024 questions of Law set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal, which reads as follows: 1. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the Suit for Perpetual Injunction ignoring the fact that the Respondents / Plaintiffs are not having any title or possession over the suit schedule property. 2. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the Suit for Perpetual Injunction when admittedly, the Respondents / Plaintiffs have not filed their link documents to show how they got title over the suit schedule property through Exhibit-A1 / Registered Sale Deed. 3. Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the Suit without taking into consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioners / defendants in the Written Statements and also the evidences let-in by them through independent witnesses D.Ws.2 to 4. 4. Whether the Appellate Court is right in dismissing the Appeal without discussing and re-appreciating the entire material and dismissing the Appeal. 15. On a thorough consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants / defendants with reference to the findings recorded in the orders appealed against, this Court see no grounds to interfere with the same or any substantial questions of Law for adjudication. Insofar as the respondents / plaintiffs’ title and possession of the suit schedule, it is not in dispute that the same is based on a Registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.2010 i.e., Ex.A1 and the entries in the revenue records Exs.A2 to A7. As seen from the orders under appeal, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court thoroughly discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides and 9 NJS, J SA_682_2024 recorded the findings in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. Ex.A1 is a registered transaction and mere non-filing of the link documents would not render the title of the plaintiffs invalid. Though a contention was raised that the Sale Deed dated 17.04.1965 is a sham and nominal document, the appellants / defendants failed to prove the same and they could not establish that they are in possession of the subject matter property. In fact, their own admission as recorded by the Trial Court that they are not in possession of the schedule property since 10 years and confirmation of the same by the Appellate Court by independently appreciating the evidence on record in Para No.13, belies their claim made in the written statement including the plea of acquiring title by adverse possession. 16. Both the Courts below appreciating the evidence and by assigning cogent reasons recorded the conclusions arrived at in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, in the considered opinion of this Court warrants no interference in the present Second Appeal and no substantial question of Law is involved. 17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J. Date: 31.01.2025 BLV 10 NJS, J SA_682_2024 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA S.A.No.682 of 2024 Date: 31.01.2025 BLV