APHC010493842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 677 OF 2024 Between: 1. Dagumati Venka Reddy, (Died) as per Irs 2 to 4. 2. Dagumati Santhamma, W/o. Late Dagumati Venka Reddy, Aged 61 years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4*'^ Street, Savitri Nagar, Neliore. 3. Dagumati Kishore, S/o. Late Daggumati Venka Reddy, Aged about years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4‘' Street, Savitri Nagar, Neliore. 4. Dagumati Anusha, D/o. Late Dagumati Venka Reddy, Aged about years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4‘' Street, Savitri Nagar, Neliore. ...Appellants/Respondents Nos.2 to 5 /3 AND 1. M Nagamani, W/o. Late Kotaiah, Aged about 83 1265, Balaji Nagar, Near Y.K.Achari School, Neliore. ...Respondent/Appellant/Decree Holder 2. Kotamreddy Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Ch'enchu Reddy, years, Occ;- Conductor, R/o. Near Andhra District. about 36 35 rd Parties years, R/o. D.No.27-2- aged about 58 Neliore Bank, Kovur, ...Respondent/Respondent/Judgment Debtor Appeal under SectionlOO against orders the appellants beg to present this Second appeal against the Decree and Judgment in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, reversing the Judgment and Decree in EANo.18 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed 2. That the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.2023 of District Judge, Nellore in A.S.No.26 of 2018 be and is hereby confirmed. 3. That each party do bear their own costs in the Second Appeal. material IV Additional Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. 3. Two C.D Copies. Ssl sree 4 HIGH COURT DATED: 15/09/2025 DECREE SA NO. 677 OF 2024 50F - 23 SEP 2025 m icW ^ Current Section DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS APHC010493842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 677 OF 2024 Appeal under SectionlOO against orders the appellants beg to present this Second appeal against the Decree and Judgment in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, reversing the Judgment and Decree in E.A.No.18 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. Between: 1. Dagumati Venka Reddy, (Died) as per Irs 2 to 4. 2. Dagumati Santhamma, W/o. Late Dagumati Venka Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4^^ Street, Savitri Nagar, Nellore. 3. Dagumati Kishore, S/o. Late Daggumati Venka Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4‘^ Street, Savitri Nagar, Nellore. 4. Dagumati Anusha, D/o. Late Dagumati Venka Reddy, Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No.25/2/889, 4‘^ Street, Savitri Nagar, Nellore. ...Appellants/Respondents Nos.2 to 5 Parties AND 1. M Nagamani, W/o. Late Kotaiah, Aged about 83 years, R/o. D.No.27-2- 1265, Balaji Nagar, Near Y.K. Achari School, Nellore. ...Respondent/Appellant/Decree Holder 2. Kotamreddy Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Chenchu years, Occ;- Conductor, R/o. Near Andhra District. Reddy, aged about 58 Bank, Kovur, Nellore ...Respondent/Respondent/Judgment Debtor lA NO: 2 OF 9n9d Petition under Order 41 Rule-5 Act R/W Section of 151 CPC praying that -the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the tgh Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including execution of delivery warrants in E.P.No.225 of 2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the above second appeal Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following JUDGMENT: SRI. HARINATH REDDY SOMA SRI. HARINATH REDDY SOMA SRI. K. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VGKR, J sa 677 2024 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.677 of 2024 Judgment: This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 20.11.2023 in A.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, reversing the order and decretal order, dated 14.09.2017 in E.A.No.18 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The 1®‘ appellant herein is the claimant, who died during pendency of first appeal, appellants 2 to 4 herein are the legal representatives of the 1" the decree holder and respondent appellant, 1®‘ respondent herein is herein is the judgment-debtor in E.A.No.18 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004. 3. The appellant / claimant instituted E.A.No.18 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The 1®‘ respondent is the decree holder and 2"'^ respondent is the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of E.A.No.18 of 2009 in learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. E.P.No.225 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2004 was filed by the claimant for seeking declaration relief that he is the owner of the schedule house property, as the decree is not maintainable against him and for costs of the application. 4. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, allowed the said claim application. Felt aggrieved of the same, the decree holder in the above said execution petition filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate The learned IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, allowed the first Court, appeal by setting aside the order passed by the executing Court in the claim VGKR, J sa_677_2024 application. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants / legal representatives of the claimant approached this Court by way of second appeal 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the proceedings before the Executing Court. 6. The case of the ciaimant / appeliant, in brief, is as follows: (i) The schedule property is the thatched house and originally owned and possessed by S/o Venkata Reddy. He had his house in the name of his daughter Sumana a house site one Pulimi Ramana Reddy electricity connection in the ■ He has been also paying municipal taxes for the house situated in the property, very long time. The property was purchased by the claimant from Pulimi Ramana Reddy for a total sale consideration value of Rs.7,83,000/- on 11.02.2008, the claimant has Since paid the, total sale consideration amount to the said P. Ramana Reddy on the same day and he got the sale No. 1753/2008. The deed registered under document possession over the property was also on the same day and since then, the claimant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property. delivered to the claimant (ii) The claimant after purchase of the mutated in his favour and he taxes for the plaint schedule property, had got the property continued the payment of municipal property in his name. He had also mutated the electricity service in his name and is paying electricity bills regularly. The claimant with an intention to raise a terraced house in the schedule mentioned property, he had temporarily kept his own man Raja in the schedule house. The herein never had respondents any right of any manner in the schedule property. VGKR, J sa_677_2024 (iii) With an intention to grab away the schedule mentioned property, the respondents 1 and 2 had colluder together and the 1®* respondent has filed a suit in O.S.57/2004 with all false allegations on the file of this court against the 2""' respondent who had no right nor possession over the property at any point of time and got the suit decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the 1®‘ respondent filed the above mentioned execution petition against the 2 respondent and got orders of delivery of possession of schedule mentioned property. When the Court Amin came to the schedule mentioned house property for delivery of possession to the 1^' respondent, the claimant and his man Raja obstructed the Amin and they had informed the matter that Pulimi Ramana Reddy was the previous owner of the schedule mentioned property and that the claimant purchased the property from Pulimi Ramana Reddy and the claimant had also handed over the xerox copy of the sale deed in his favour to the Court Amin. The claimant has filed a suit in O.S.No.1193 of 2008 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore and got an ad-interim injunction against the 1®‘ respondent, (iv) The claimant or his vendor are not the parties in the suit in O.S.No.57/2004 and the claimant is a stranger and suit decree is not applicable to the claimant and the decree cannot be executed against the claimant. The claimant further stated that the 1 respondent never had any right, title or possession over the schedule mentioned property and the alleged vendor was also having no right, title or possession over the schedule mentioned property and prayed that the claimant may be declared as the owner of the schedule mentioned house property. nd _7. The 1®‘ respondent / decree holder filed counter before the executing Court denying the averments in the claim petition and contended that when VGKR, J sa_677_2024 the Court Amin the 1 came to the schedule property for delivery of possession to respondent, the petitioner and his men Raja obstructed the Amin in ormed about the original ownership belongs to Pulimi that handover the Xerox copies of sale deed in his favour to the respondent once again reiterating his claim property that he purchased the and Ramana Reddy and Court Amin over the schedule one Kuppa Rama as false. This schedule property from Ex A 1 in ,K > n- 26,02.1981, Which is marked x.A-1 ,n the suit. The original patta that was stands in the of this respondent Murthy under a Registered Sale as name of his vendor so, in the year as Ex.A-2 in the suit. While 1998, one Kotamreddy Madhusudhan Reddy has sent caveat copy from one , Advocate, Nellore stating that he purchased the property from one Pulimi Ramana Reddy, suit. Since the said Kotamreddy Madhusudhan property stating that he has purchased Piduru Nageswara Rao, which is marked as Ex.A-8 in the Reddy claimed the schedule the same from Pulimi Ramana Reddy possession of the property. The said Madhusudhan Reddy only, where Ramana Reddy is not necessary party Code. Therefore, the contention and that he being the owner has been in suit IS riled against said the said Pulimi as contemplated under Civil Procedure of the petitioner that he was not a party to the earlier proceedings and that the decree i tenable ground to 's not applicable to him iIS no way a cause present application. The petitioner without properly oumn,» f w purpose of adverting the attention of thisof the suit in O.S.No.57/2004 for the decree. In fact, as the defendant his evidence. knowing the facts and ci Court mentioned that it i . IS an ex parte come forward to adduce though on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 The Court treated that there defendant and posted the in that suit did not were cross- examined. IS no evidence on behalf of the matter for arguments and delivered the judgment. Hence, sought for dismissal The 2'’'^ of the petition. respondent / judgment-debtor remained ex parte in the execution petition itself. 5 VGKR, J sa_677 2024 8. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the on 12.12.2024, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: appeal, (1) Whether the 1"‘ appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and / or appreciated the evidence which is not on record and / or appreciated the evidence perversely? (2) Whether the judgment and decree in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore i: binding on the appellant and his vendor, as they are not parties to that suit? IS 9. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the appellants K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for 1®' respondent. 10. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. and Sri In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh\ the Apex Court held as follows; “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar^, the Apex Court held as follows: ^ AIR 1993 SC 398 ^ AIR 1999 SC 471 6 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 11. The case of the appellant / claimant is that the suit schedule property is a thatched house and a house site abutting to it and he purchased the same from one Pulimi Ramana Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2008 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,83,000/- and possession of said property was also delivered to the appellant on the same day and 1 respondent / decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2004 against the 2' respondent, who had no right over the property and obtained a declaratory decree and recovery of possession of the property and he filed E.P.No.225 of 2008 for delivery of the property and when the Court Amin came to the schedule property for delivery, he raised objection and he filed a claim application under Order 21, Rule 97, 98, 99, 100 and under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to declare him as a owner of the petition schedule property. St nd 12. The deceased appellant / claimant is claiming ownership rights in the petition schedule property and he is seeking the relief of declaration of his ownership in the execution proceedings filed in O.S.No.57 of 2004 under Order 21, Rules 97 to 100 and under Section 151 of CPC. As stated supra, the claimant herein is claiming the relief of declaration to declare that he is the owner of the petition schedule property. Therefore, it is for the claimant to prove his title and also title of his vendor in the petition schedule property. 13. In a claim application under Order 21, Rules 97 to 100 of CPC for declaration of ownership, the burden always lies on the claimant to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaratory relief and the weaknesses if any of the case set up by the 1®^ respondent / decree holder would not be a ground to grant such relief of declaration of ownership to the claimant. Therefore, it is quite clear that the claimant in a claim application for 7 VGKR, J sa_677_2024 declaration of his ownership, he could succeed only on the strength of his own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it and the claimant is not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case set up by the respondent / decree holder. It is the duty of claimant to prove that his vendor is having valid title to transfer the title in favour of the claimant. 14. The 1®' respondent / decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2004 for seeking the relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession over the petition schedule property against the 2'^'^ respondent / judgment- debtor and the 2'^'^ respondent / judgment-debtor engaged an Advocate before a civil Court in O.S.No.57 of 2004 and also filed a written statement and the learned counsel for the defendant in the said suit proceedings examined the witnesses of the plaintiff including the plaintiff. But no evidence is adduced by the defendant and the said O.S.No.57 of 2004 which is filed by liic ue^ree i iuiuei roi' seekii^g the relief of declaration of possession is decreed on contest by both the parties. The claim of the respondent / decree holder in that suit proceedings is that he purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed way back 26.02.1981 from one Kuppa Rama Murthy under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs.3,000/- and after purchase of the same, he raised a compound wall on boundaries of all sides and her vendor was allotted the suit schedule property by Tahsildar, Nellore by way of patta dated 25.01.1969 and both the original sale deed dated 26.02.1981 stands in the name of decree holder and the original patta stands in the name of vendor of the decree holder filed in the suit proceedings. Certified copy of the said registered sale deed and certified copy of patta are filed in the present execution proceedings and marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2. The claim of the claimant is that he purchased the petition schedule property from one Pulimi Ramana Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2008 and his vendor was granted patta. For the reasons best known to the claimant, he did , cross- litie and recover Oi on 8 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 not choose to file the original registered sale deed and also original patta stands in the name of his vendor and copy of the patta is filed in the present proceedings and marked as Ex.A.6. Moreover, the claimant herein denied that the said patta belongs to his vendor. As per his statement in his evidence in cross-examination that the said patta does not belongs to his vendor. 15. The appellant / claimant is seeking declaration of his ownership rights in the petition schedule property. As stated supra, he has to prove his valid right and title in the petition schedule property and also to prove the valid right and title of his vendor in the petition schedule property. The sale deed of the claimant is related to the year 2008 dated 11.02.2008 which is marked as Ex.A.1 in the present proceedings. It was averred in the sale deed that the said property is a seif acquired property of vendor of claimant Pulimi Ramana Reddy. But the claimant filed one copy of the assignment patta said to have been issued by the revenue authorities in the year 1985 in the name of said Pulimi Ramana Reddy. As noticed supra, t ■>!! patta IS not yet filed. The appellant / claimant sale deed is dated 11.02.2008 and copy of assignment patta stands in the name of Pulimi Ramana Reddy is relates to ! n o icSi O i the year 1985. As noticed supra, both original documents are not yet filed by the claimant. Whereas the sale deed of the decree holder is dated 26.02.1981 which is more than 30 years old document and her vendor title is also by way of assignment patta dated 25.01.1969 way back more than 50 years old document. Furthermore, two original documents i.e. registered sale deed stands in the name of the decree holder and also original assignment patta stands in the name of vendor of the decree holder are filed in the suit proceedings and marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2. It is also relevant to note that the title of the decree holder is decided in O.S.No.57 of 2004 by the trial Court in the said suit proceedings that the decree holder is declared as original owner of the petition schedule property and the learned trial Judge in the said suit proceedings also held that the vendor of the decree holder is having valid title in the petition schedule property. As noticed supra, the title of the decree VGKR, J sa_677_2024 holder is decided by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.57 of 2004 against the son-in-law of vendor of the claimant. 16. In the suit proceedings, the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy pleaded the suit schedule property belongs to Pulimi Ramana Reddy Pulimi Ramana Reddy is his father-in-law. The decree holder filed and a copy of caveat petition No.144 of 1998. dated 07.09.1998 said to have been issued by the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy i.e. the judgment-debtor herein by saying that he purchased the same from Pulimi Ramana Reddy. The said copy of caveat is marked as Ex.A.8 in the suit proceedings and Ex.B.9 in the present proceedings. The judgment-debtor has not disputed the said caveat proceedings issued by the judgment-debtor. In the caveat petition proceedings, the judgment-debtor reiterated in his affidavit that he purchased the petition schedule property from one Pulimi Ramana Reddy along with thatched house with electricity and he leased out the house to his tenants and r dya dgo, Swiuc persons came and demanded the tenants of the judgment-debtor to handover the possession to them, petition and subsequent events happened as stated by the decree holder in the plaint in suit proceedings leads to filing of suit for declaration of title of decree holder and recovery of possession against the judgment-debtor herein. It is the case of the appellant / claimant that he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the decree holder herein and he was granted temporary injunction in the said suit proceedings. The decree holder filed a copy of judgment passed in the said suit proceedings initiated by the claimant, clearly shows that the said suit filed by the claimant is dismissed by the civil Court. a wwujjic ui The said caveat It 17. It is the admitted case of the claimant that by the date of purchase of the petition schedule property on 11.02.2008, electricity receipts relates to the thatched house in the schedule property stands in the name of daughter of Pulimi Ramana Reddy by name Sumana. As per the own case of the 10 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 claimant, Pulimi Ramana Reddy is having only one daughter. It is undisputed fact that the judgment-debtor in the suit proceedings O.S.No.57 of 2004 is none other than the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy. As per the own case of the claimant, he purchased the petition schedule property on 11.02.2008. It clearly goes to show that during pendency of the suit proceedings, which is pending against the son-in-law of said Pulimi Ramana Reddy, the claimant obtained the said sale deed Ex.A.1 from Pulimi Ramana Reddy. It is also quite clear that Ex.A.2 bunch of electricity payment receipts even subsequent to Ex.A.1 alleged sale deed, relates to the month of October and November, 2008 stands in the name of said Sumana i.e. the daughter of Pulimi Ramana Reddy. The judgment-debtor herein is none other than the husband of said Sumana and son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy and during pendency of the said suit proceedings, the claimant alleged to have obtained the said sale deed under Ex.A.1. 18. The claimant himself examined as P.W.1 before the executing Court in the present proceedings. He admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he got acquaintance with Pulimi Ramana Reddy since the date of sale deed only and he has no relationship with him and he paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance amount and fixed five months time for registration of the said sale deed and an agreement was executed to that effect and it was cancelled on the date of registration of the sale deed. There is no whisper in the claim application itself that there was an earlier agreement prior to Ex.A.1 sale deed and part payment of consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, prior to the said registered sale deed. In fact, there is no whisper in Ex.A.1 sale deed about the prior alleged agreement in between the claimant and Pulimi Ramana Reddy and he further admits that copy of assignment patta which is filed by him is not relates to his vendor. He further admits that there is no recital in Ex.A.1 about the alleged patta said to have been issued in favour of his vendor and in Ex.A.1, there is no mention about the alleged agreement and alleged payment of advance amount. Furthermore, a clear admission made by him is that the 11 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 electricity service connection of the schedule property stands in the name of daughter of Pulimi Ramana Reddy by name Sumana and the said Sumana is none other than the wife of the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings, against whom, a decree of delivery has been passed and after allowing the police aid petition, the claimant herein filed the present claim application. 19. The claimant pleaded ignorance about purchase of the property by the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy i.e. judgment-debtor from his vendor and he also pleaded ignorance about filing of caveat petition by the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy i.e. judgment-debtor. Another important admission made by him is that he preferred a revision in C.R.P.No.423 of 2009 against the orders passed in E.A.No.18 of 2009 and the said C.R.P. was dismissed as not-pressed by him and thereafter, he filed the present claim application before the executing Court. It is quite clear that after filing execution petition proceedings and after issuance of police aid by the executing Court, the Gidimanl dppi OdCheCi of his ownership rights in the schedule property, admissions of the claimant in his evidence in cross-examination, it is evident that his own evidence is not supporting the recitals in the sale deed under Ex.A.1 and his own evidence is not in consonance with the pleadings in the claim application filed by the claimant. Furthermore, it is the specific case of the appellant / claimant that his vendor got title by way of assignment patta said to have been issued in the year 1985 under original of Ex.A.6. As per his own statement in his evidence, he stated that the said copy of assignment patta does not belong to his vendor. Furthermore, it is averred in Ex.A.1 sale deed that it is a self acquired property of vendor of the claimant by Pulimi Ramana Reddy which is also quite contrary to own pleadings of the appellant / claimant. As noticed supra, his own admissions itself shows that he is not a bonafide purchaser and his own evidence is not in consonance with the pleadings taken by the claimant in the claim application. Furthermore, there is a clear cloud over the title of the vendor of the appellant i seeking the reiiet ot declaration In view of the above U ie t;AC:L.UUiig OUUi i IVJI name 12 VGKR, J sa_677_2024 / claimant. The claimant also failed to prove that his vendor is having valid title in the petition schedule property. Moreover, the title of the vendor of the decree holder has decided by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.57 of 2004. The said suit is filed against the son-in-law of Pulimi Ramana Reddy by the decree holder and during pendency of the said suit proceedings, the claimant herein obtained the alleged sale deed from the said Pulimi Ramana Reddy. As noticed supra, as per the own case of the claimant, electricity payment receipts subsequent to obtaining the sale deed by him are stands in the name of wife of judgment-debtor, the electricity connection relates to the petition schedule property stands in the name of daughter of his vendor by Sumana, who is none other than the wife of the judgment-debtor herein. name 20. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the first appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper manner. Though, the first appellate Court has given an incorrect reason in its judgment viz., the Ex.A.1 transaction was subsequent to the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the ultimate finding given by the first appellate Court is that the executing Court came to wrong conclusion that the claimant proved his title and allowed the claim application of the claimant and the first appellate Court came to conclusion that the claimant failed to prove his ownership and that he is not entitled for declaration that he is a owner of the petition schedule property. In fact, the executing Court held in its order in the claim application that the respondent / decree holder has not adduced any evidence to show that the decree holder has been in possession of the petition schedule property. The said finding of the executing Court in the claim application is unknown to law. It is nobody’s case that the decree holder in possession of the petition schedule property. In fact, the decree holder approached the executing Court for executing the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court for seeking possession of the schedule property from the judgment-debtor and after granting police aid, the claimant approached the executing Court and filed the present claim application. Admijtedly^ in the IS 13 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 case at hand, the claimant failed to prove his valid title. Though he examined as P.W.1 before the executing Court, his evidence is not in consonance with the recitals of Ex.A.1 and also with the averments mentioned in the claim application. Since the claimant failed to prove his valid title and also his vendor’s valid title, this Court cannot rely on Ex.A.1 to declare the title of the claimant. was 21. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, is not binding on the deceased appellant and also the vendor of the deceased appellant, since they are not parties to the said suit. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that a declaration given under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is binding, only in between the parties to the suit and it is a declaration in personam and not in re/77 and relied on a case law of Orissa High Court at Cuttack in R.S.A.No.386 Dciween Niganianancia Hath and otheiS v. diba Naidyau Haii Ui iiUUH- ii i (dead) and others. In the case at hand, it is the specific case of the appellant / claimant that he purchased the property from the father-in-law of the judgment-debtor during pendency of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.57 of 2004. Even as per the own case of the claimant, by the date of his alleged purchase under Ex.A.1, the electricity receipts stands in the name of wife of the judgment- debtor i.e. the daughter of Pulimi Ramana Reddy and even subsequent to the sale deed also in the month of October and November in the same year, the electricity, payment receipts of the schedule property stands in the name of wife of the judgment-debtor. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the cited decision are different to the instant case. 14 VGKR, J sa_677_2024 22. Learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another^, wherein the Apex Court held follows: on as “17. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct ”. In the case at hand, the 1®* respondent is the decree holder. On behalf of the 1"‘ respondent / decree holder, her husband is examined as R.W.1. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that in all civil proceedings, the parties to the suit and husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witness. In the case at hand, to prove the claim of the decree holder, the husband of the decree holder has given evidence as P.W.1 before the executing Court. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the P.W.1 to depose evidence on behalf of his wife / decree holder, all the specific case of the claimant that R.W.1 is not aware of the facts of the Moreover, the decree holder is not a claimant. It is not at case. The claimant approached the executing Court for seeking declaration of his right ownership in the petition schedule property. Therefore, it is for the claimant to prove his title and also his vendor’s title in the claim application filed by the claimant under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 100 and under Section 151 of CPC. and 23. In the case at hand, the claimant claimed ownership rights in the schedule property and the relief sought by the claimant is to declare that he is the owner of the petition schedule property. Moreover right and title of the claimant is not proved by way of producing cogent evidence and the claimant also failed to prove his vendor’s title by producing cogent, oral and documentary evidence. Moreover, he failed to prove that his vendor is having valid title in the schedule property claimant Js jiot entitled to declare that he is the owner of the schedule property. The title of the 1®‘ respondent / decree holder has been decided by as noticed supra, the In such a case, the ^ (1999) 3 SupremeCourt Cases 573 15 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 a competent civil Court in O.S.No.57 of 2004 by relying on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment-debtor in the execution petition is none other than the son-in-law of the vendor of the appellant / claimant. It is the specific case of the appellant / claimant that as on the date of purchase of the property by the claimant, the daughter of his vendor used to pay electricity charges in the name of his daughter. It seems his vendor’s daughter is in possession of property. Even subsequent to the date of Ex.A.1, the daughter of the vendor of the claimant, who is none other than the wife of the judgment- debtor, used to pay electricity consumption charges in respect of the petition schedule property in the month of October and November, 2008. Therefore, the appellant / claimant failed to prove his valid title and also his vendor’s title in the petition schedule property. 24. It is the admitted case of the appellant / claimant that he purchased the petition schedule property from the father-in-law of judgment-debtor and ne purcnased the petition scneduie property on 11.02.21)00 and lx.A.2 duncn of electricity payment receipts for the month of October and November, 2008, subsequent to the Ex.A.1 sale deed, are in the name of wife of judgment- debtor. Whereas, the judgment-debtor has taken a specific plea in the suit itself that his father-in-law is the owner of the petition schedule property. Prior to filing of the suit O.S.No.57 of 2004 by the decree holder, the judgment- debtor issued caveat proceedings, in which he reiterated that he purchased the schedule property from Pulimi Ramana Reddy. The said Pulimi Ramana Reddy is none other than the father-in-law of the judgment-debto r. As stated supra, the recitals in Ex.A.1 sale deed of the appellant / claimant is not in consonance with his evidence. Furthermore, his vendor title is not proved. The claimant herein approached the executing Court for seeking the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the petition schedule property. But he failed to prove the title of his vendor and also failed to prove that he is a bonafide purchaser of the schedule property. As stated supra, the appellant / clairfrant failed to prove his right and title by producing cogent evidence and 16 VGKR, J sa_677_2024 also failed to prove his vendor’s title. On the other hand, the right and title of the decree holder is decided by the competent civil Court in the year 2008 itself. Therefore, the claimant / appellant must oblige the decree, because the claimant failed to prove his valid title and also his vendor’s title in the petition schedule property and he cannot prevent the rightful owner of the petition schedule property, whose ownership rights in the petition schedule property are decided by the competent civil Court and the said finding reached its finality. Though the appellant / claimant is not a party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.57 of 2004 and though the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.57 of 2004 is not binding on him, he must oblige the decree passed in O.S.No.57 of 2004, because the claimant failed to prove his valid title and also his vendor’s title. 25. It is well settled that in execution of a decree for possession of immovable property, the executing Court has to deliver the physical possession of the decretal land to the decree holder. The jurisdiction is conferred on executing Court to remove any person, who is bound by the decree and who refuses to vacate the property. The words is bound by the decree clearly mandate that removal can only be of a person, who is bound by the decree”. Rules 97 to 101 of Civil Procedure Code deal with the situation when the execution is obstructed or resisted by “any person” claiming right, title or interest in the property. The words “any person includes even a stranger to decree resisting the decree of possession as not been bound by a decree or by claiming independent right, title or interest to the property ”. any person who 26. In the light of the material on record and upon earnest consideration, now, it is manifest that the substantial questions of law raised in the second appeal on behalf of the appellant / claimant did not arise or remain for consideration. This Court is satisfied that this case did not involve any subsequent questions of law for determination. 17 VGKR, J sa 677 2024 27. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District Judge, Nellore. (with records if any) The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nellore. (with records if any) One CC to Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer V.R Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (to Dispatch the Trial Court Records) Two C.^ Cppies, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ssl sree HIGH COURT DATED: 15/09/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA NO. 677 OF 2024 fCj I 23 SEP 2025 | , Curreni i>eciion . , DISMISSING THE SECOND appeal without costs