IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 1363 OF 2011 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Decree and Judgment dated 20.04.2010 made in A.S No.28/2005 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge Court(FTC), Guntur by reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in O.S No 175 of 2000. Between: Mr.Kuraganti Samuel, S/o. K.Kotaah, aged 64 yrs, hrustian. Cultivation 18th ward, JLB College Road Repalle, Guntur District ...Appellant/Respondent/Defendant AND 1. Kambham Sangeetha Rao (died) 2. Khambham Deva Vara Prasad, S/o. Late Sangeetha Rao R/o. Leprosy Machine Chelluru, Vijayanagaram ...Respondents/Appellants/Plaintiffs I.A. NO: 2 OF 2010(SAMP. NO: 2444 OF 2010) 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 grant stay of all further proceedings of the judgemOnt and decree 1 passed in AS No.28/2005 on the file of the file of the XI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, [FTC], Guntur / Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N SRIHARI The Court made the following Judgment: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.1363 of 2011 Judgment: This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 20.04.2010 in A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2004 in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (“Trial Court” for short). 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the respondent i.e., plaintiff died and his sole legal representative brought on record as 2'^'^ respondent in the appeal suit. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.175 of 2000 with a prayer for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of the same from the defendant and for costs. 4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali. The learned First Appellate'Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant in the said suit 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 original suit. 2 VGKR, j, sa_1363_2011 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint O.S.No.175 of 2000, is as follows; averments in The plaint schedule property originally belongs Rao and Thokala China Hanumantu. purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 separate registered sale deeds respectively. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his to Cherukuri Amrutha The plaintiff and his wife-Satyavathi cents and Ac.0-04 72 cents under two dated 28.04.1972 and 01.02.1955 wife are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later, the wife of the plaintiff sold 72 cent out of Ac.0-04 72 cents to an extent of Ac.0-0 one Annamma on 01.05.1955 under a registered sale deed. The plaintiff and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter the plaintiff gave the on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- in the plaint schedule property to the defendant year 1989. The defendant erected a thatched house therein and living therein. The defendant paying rent to the plaintiff continuously up to 1996. Thereafter, the defendant failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the rent due, but the defendant postpone the payment of rent on one pretext or the other. Later, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 1996 for injunction before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. When suit was filed by the plaintiff, the defendant took the and the elders pacified the dispute between them the matter before the elders on a condition the defendant should vacate from the plaint schedule property within three months date of settlement. The plaintiff withdraw his suit from the as per the advice of the owner of the The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendant got issued a reply with false allegations and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. elders. After death of the wife of plaintiff, he became the absolute plaint schedule property. 7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: 3 VGKR, J. saJ363_2011 filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Principal of 1996 and the same was dismissed O.S.No.68 of 1996 for permanent A suit for injunction was Junior Civil Judge, Repalle in O.S.No.68 on 09 12 1999. The plaintiff filed the suit in injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the ' in which the defendant filed a written ■ I of the plaint schedule site in his 1 the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.684 of the relief of injunction to convert the suit for plaint schedule property on 05.04.1996 in statement stating that he was in possession right for about 25 years. Pending own 1999 to amend the plaint giving up recovery of possession. The defendant opposed the amendment and the said merits. The plaintiff stated in the legal l.A.No.684 of 1999 was dismissed on notice issued to the defendant on 09.02.1995 through Sri K.V. Seshagiri Rao i, the defendant took lease of plaint of Rs.20/- and erected one poled thatched statement, the defendant admittedly is in site from 1985 openly, uninterruptedly and as that 10 years prior to the date of notice schedule site on a monthly rent house therein. In view of the possession of the suit schedule of right to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant obtained the title to the plaint schedule site even by adverse possession. The father-in-law of the defendant is the nephew of the wife of the plaintiff. pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the 8. On the basis of above following issues for trial; Whether the plaintiff has right and title over the plaint schedule property? (1) defendant perfected his title by adverse (2) Whether the possession? (3) Whether the suit is barred by virtue of orders in t.A.No.684 of 1999 in O.S.No.68 of 1996? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property? (5) To what relief? 4 VGKR, J. sa_1363_2011 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 of the defendant, D.W.1 to A. 11 were marked. On behalf was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.23 were marked. 10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion arguments of both sides and of trial, on hearing the on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.28 of 2005 of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track , on the file Court), Guntur at Tenali, wherein, the following point came up for consideration: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to property? recover possession of schedule 11. The learned First Appellate Judge after hearing the answered the point, as above, against the defendant and allowed the filed by the plaintiff by setting aside the decree and judgment passed trial Court. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2000 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the appeal, on 18.11.2011, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad, framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court without re-stating the effect of evidence on record is justified in upsetting the well considered findings of the Trial Court? (2) Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court stand vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures, which have resulted in perversity of findings? (3) The First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the defendant/appellant herein has discharged the burden cast him in view of the provisions of the Hindu Evidence Act? 13. Heard Sri V. Nitish, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the respondents. arguments, appeal by the at on . 5 VGKR, J. sa 1363 2011 14. 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. 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: “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.” 15. The case of the plaintiff is that plaint schedule property i.e., for an extent of Ac.0-05 cents and Ac.0-04 >2 cents purchased by the plaintiff bnd his wife under two separate registered sale deeds, dated 28.04.1972 and 01.02.1955 respectively and ever since the purchase of the property, the plaintiff and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the wife of plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.0-0 V2 cent to one Annamma on AIR 1993 SC 398 ^ AIR 1999 SC 471 VGKR, J sa_1363_2011 01 05.1955 his wife Lender a registered sale deed and therefore both the plaintiff are in Ac.0-09 cents i thereafter, the plaintiff possession and enjoyment of and vacant site of property. The plaintiff further gave the plaint schedule '•a., plaint schedule 3a extent of pleaded that vacant site to the defendant poor to fiiing of the s'-ected a thatched house paying rent to the plaintiff a monthly rent of Rs.20/ - at about 10 years oh defendant on year 1989 and the therein and the defendant and thereafter suit in the therein by living regularly up to 1996 IS the defendant failed to pay the rents. The pleaded that the plaintiff i having received the plaintiff further defendant, the defendant gave a reply notice issued a legal notice to the said i allegations to the plaintiff which end possession of the registered notice with false suit for declaration of title leads to filing of the plaint schedule property. 16. The defendant pleaded i a suit in O.S.No.68 of injunction and the proceedings in the written 1996 was filed by the same was dismissed statement itself that plaintiff herein for previously, prohibitory in the said suit said to have been an 09.12.1999 and i dated 09.02.1995 defendant. The plaintiff herei out the suit schedule a notice was referred issued by the plaintiff to the ein taken a plea in that notice that he leased I Rs.20/- to the defendant property on a monthly rent of therein suit schedule site plaintiff. The suit schedule site site. and the defendant erected a thatched house ™?TT ’" 989 openly, uninterruptedly ™ defendant further pleaded to the knowledge of the that he was not a tenant in the enjoyment of the suit schedule si and he is in possession and eni 17. As seen from the written statement, there I a Ihp defendant is the owner Of the suit schedule forth by the defendant i the suit schedule 's no specific pleading property. The defence put IS that he perfected his title to in the written statement i property by way of adverse possession and the plaintiff has property. The title of the plaintiff is simply denied no title in the suit schedule by the defendant. It is not at all the case of the defendant that he purchased • . 7 VGKR, J. sa 1363 2011 the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed from its original owner. It was simply pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that there is no title or right or possession to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and the defendant proved his possession for more than 25 years prior to filing of the suit by way of documentary evidence. 18. The plaintiff in the suit is seeking relief of declaration of title and possession. The legal position in this regard is no more res-integra, the same has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others^ “that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession would 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, irrespective of the question whether the defendant has proved his case or not.” 19. As seen from the own case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his wife- Satyavati purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 cents and Ac.0-04 >2 cents vacant site under two separate registered sale deeds, dated 28.04.1972 and 01.02.1955 respectively. The original registered sale deeds of the plaintiff and his wife filed by the plaintiff are exhibited as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are more than 50 years old documents. The suit schedule property is a vacant site. According to the plaintiff, his wife sold Ac.0-0 >2 cent out of Ac.0- 04 cents to one Annamma on 01.05.1955 under a registered sale deed and that the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0-09 cents of vacant site is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his wife. Later on, the'wife of the plaintiff died and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The total plaint schedule vacant site is situated within the common boundaries as a single plot which was shown in plaint schedule. It is not at all the case of the defendant that the suit schedule boundaries and extent as mentioned in plaint schedule are not correct. ^ 2014(2) see 269 8 VGKR, J. sa 1363 2011 20. As stated supra, the defendant simply pleaded that he title by way of adverse possession and the title of perfected his the plaintiff is not at all disputed by the defendant in the written statement itself except a formal denial. There is no specific pleading in the written statement that the plaintiff IS not having title in the plaint schedule property. The defendant his evidence in cross examination that he encroached to R&B Department and constructed admitted in porumboke site belongs a hut and he has been living in the said hut, but the same is not at all pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. Therefore, without pleading in the written statement, the said statement cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, no evidence is produced by the defendant to show that he encroached the R&B site and constructed a hut in it. In Ex.A.4 reply notice issued by the defendant through his counsel by name one Sri P.V.G. Krishna Murthy of Repalle, the defendant pleaded that having been purchased the suit schedule plaintiff and his wife long ago for more than 25 years under an oral sale, the defendant is in possession of schedule property since 25 years. As seen from Ex.A.4 reply notice, written statement filed by the defendant and the property from the evidence engaged the affidavit of defendant D.W.1, it is quite clear that the defendant same Advocate by name Sri P.V.G. Krishna Murthy of Repalle in prosecuting the present suit. Therefore, it is quite clear that the defendant suppressed the truth before the trial Court during the trial proceedings and he has taken pleading which is quite contrary to the earlier pleading. For the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the defendant is not disputing the title of the plaintiff and his wife. a new 21. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his wife is no more and he filed the suit alone. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not having exclusive title and his son is also having right and title in the part of the plaint schedule property and therefore the plaintiff alone cannot maintain the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit proceedings in the year 2000. The plea of the plaintiff is^that the defendant is his tenant in respect of the plaint schedule VGKR, J. sa 1^63 2011 vacant site on a monthly rent Rs.20/-. During the pendency of the first appeal, the plaintiff died and his son was added as a sole legal representative of the plaintiff in the year 2007. The second appeal is also filed by the defendant against the legal representative of the plaintiff i.e., the son of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court by giving cogent reasons held in its judgment that “the plaintiff can effectively represent the estate of his wife and the suit is person having title and a person without title”. Moreover, the between a claim of the plaintiff is defendant is his tenant and no single document is filed by the defendant to prove the alleged oral sale from the plaintiff and his wife. Moreover, the title of the plaintiff is more than 50 years old registered documents, the said registered sale deeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are not at all denied by the defendant. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that a suit for bare injunction is filed by the plaintiff in the year 1996 vide O.S.No.68 of 1996, in the said suit, the appellant herein pleaded that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and therefore a petition was filed by the plaintiff herein to amend the relief of permanent injunction as relief of declaration of title and on merits the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle dismissed the said petition and later on the permanent injunction suit was dismissed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Therefore, the present suit for declaration of title and possession is not at all maintainable. The aforesaid contention of the appellant is unsustainable under law because the earlier suit is filed for bare injunction and later the comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed in the year 2000 i.e., the present suit proceedings. The contention of the plaintiff herein is that during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.68 of 1996, there was a settlement before the elders viz., Chebrolu Sundara Rao, M. Surya Rao, Karumanchi Stalin and Gujjarlamudi Anil Kumar and they advised the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property by 15.04.1994, but he failed to do so, the same has been proved by way of Ex.A. 11 by the plaintiff and in view of the compromise, the 10 ■ % ■ VGKR, J, sa_1363_2011 surt O.S.No.68 of 1996 is withdrawn. The learned counsel for the appellant “-nd that EX.A.11 does not hear the signature of the dld^ " therefore it is not binding on him. Moreover, P W 3 supported the plaintiff about the settlement arrived before the elders tied the written statement Itself that father-in-law of the defendant is nephew of the wife of the plaintiff. and and P.W.4 the mediators 23. It was contended by the defendant in the written statement that he acduire title by way of adverse possession. The defendant further contld in the registered legal notice issued by the piaintiff to him through Sri K.V. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate to the date of notice, the defendant took on 09.02.1995 the plaintiff pleaded 10 years prior schedule property 0 a mont ,y rem of Rs.20/- and thereafter erected a thatched house therein defendant further pleaded In the written statement itself that admitted the possession of the defendant 1985 openly and that he perfected his the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property from title by way of adverse possession. As per the recitals in the legal notice itself that the the plaint schedule vacant site defendant is in possession of as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- from 1985 onwards and later on, the defendant committed default of payment of used to pay rents up to 1996 a legal notice, dated issued a reply notice, dated a suit for declaration of title and rent after constructing a hut and the defendant and thereafter failed to pay the rents. The plaintiff issued 01.08.2000 and subsequently the defendant i 25.08.2000 and later the plaintiff instituted recovery of possession. 24. The law is well settled that a tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor, since nature of possession is permissive possession as a tenant, it was held by the Apex Court in Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs. vs. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar 11 VGKR, J. sa_1363_2011 (D) through LRs. and others'* this Court while considering the question whether tenants of original owner could claim adverse possession against transferee of landlord held that tenants or lessees could not claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor, as the nature of their possession is permissive in nature. In the case on hand, the defendant failed to prove three classic requirements as required to prove adverse possession as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Neelam Gupta and others v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and another®. As stated supra, the Apex Court held as follows; In the contextual situation, especially in view of the nature of the evidence adduced by the defendants in setting up and supporting the claim of adverse possession, the decisions of this Court in Ravinder KaurGrewal and others, v. Manjit Kaur and others, (2019) 8 SCC 729 and the decision of a Constitution Bench in M. Siddiq (D) through LRs (Ram Janmabhumi Temple case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and others, (2020) 1 SCC 1, require reference. Paragraph 60 of the decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal’s case (supra), in so far as it is relevant, reads thus: - “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required ” In the case on hand, the defendant failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse possession to the title of the plaintiff which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period. on '' (2024) 2 SCC 590 ^ ?02^6) ALD 119 (SC) 12 % VGKR, J. ■ sa_1363_2011 25. It is well settled that possession must establish both a person who sets up a plea of adverse possession which is peaceful, open and continuous possession which meets the requirement of being nec vi nec a plea of adverse claim and nec precario. To substantiate the character of the possession, possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse. These requirements have to be duly established first by adequate pleadings sufficient evidence. In the and second by leading on hand, the said mandatory requirements case are lacking and defendant failed to no hesitation to hold the prove the same. Therefore, this Court has requirements to co-exist to constitute adverse possession are not at all established by the defendant. 26. In a case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and others®, the Apex Court held as follows: “Before parting with this law of adverse possession which ousts case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true a person who in a owner in owner. In the case on hand, the defendant entered into a possession of the plaint schedule property as a tenant. Again he is claiming title by way of adverse possession against the true owner. Admittedly, the plaintiff has got valid title in the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 ®2008 (6) ALT (SC) llS-B.) 13 VGKR, J. sa 1363 2011 registered sale deeds. Both Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 sale deeds are more than 50 years old documents. The original registered sale deeds are filed and exhibited as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The case of the plaintiff is he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he let out the same to the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and subsequently from the year 1996 onwards the defendant committed default of payment of rents. The title of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant. The case of the defendant in reply notice given to the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff and his wife under an oral sale, but the same is not at all proved by the defendant. “Non-use of the property by owner even for a long time, do not affect his title, but the possession will be altered when another person taken possession of the property and asserts a right over it. It is also well settled that a person claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is a peaceful, open and continuous, the possession must be adequate in continuing any publicity and in extent to show that his possession is adverse to the true owner.” Admittedly, in the case on hand, the defendant is in possession of the schedule property as a tenant. It is well settled that tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor. X X / 27. In the case on hand, the plaint schedule property is a vacant site for an extent of Ac.0-09 cents and the title of the plaintiff is proved by virtue of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 registered sale deeds. The tile of the plaintiff is not at all denied by the defendant. The alleged oral sale as pleaded by the defendant in reply notice is not at all proved by him. Therefore, the plaintiff proves his title over the suit schedule vacant site for an extent of Ac.0-09 cents by virtue of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 registered sale deeds which are more than 50 years old documents. Since the plaintiff proved his title to the plaint schedule property, he is entitled for recovery of possession of the property. 14 VGKR, J. sa_1363 2011 28. Therefore, by giving cogent reasons, the learned First Appellate Judge nghtiy set aside the finding given by the learned trial Judge, I do not find Therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 29. In the result, the . . '® dismissed confirming the decree and judgment of the learned First Appellate directed to deliver the Judge. The defendant is hereby '^^cant possession of the plaint schedule 2 respondent in the second appeal \A/ithin the date of this judgment. Considering each party do bear their property to the a period of three (03) months from the facts and circumstances of case own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, stand closed. It any, pending in the Appeal shall Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE \ N OFFICER To. 1- The XI Additional District & Sessions Guntur District (with records if any) 2. The Additional Civil Judge(Senior 3. One CC to Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate 4. One CC to Sri. N Srihari, Advocate 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, Amaravathi 6. Three CD Copies Judge Court(FTC), Guntur, Division), Tenali, Guntur District [OPUC] [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Stu vna T HIGH COURT \ DATED:09/05/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA.No.1363 of 2011 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 1363 OF 2011 Between: Mr.Kuraganti Samuel, S/o. K.Kotaah, aged 64 yrs, hrustian, Cultivation 18th ward, JLB College Road Repalle, Guntur District ...Appellant/Respondent/Defendant AND 1. Kambham Sangeetha Rao (died) 2. Khambham Deva Vara Prasad, S/o. Late Sangeetha Rao R/o. Leprosy Machine Chelluru, Vijayanagaram ...Respondents/Appellants/Plaintiffs Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Decree and Judgment dated 20.04.2010 made in A.S No.28/2005 on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge Court(FTC), Guntur by reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Additional Senior Civil judge, Tenali in O.S No 175 of 2000. 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 1 the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri V Nitesh, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N Srihari, Advocate for Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and decree as follows: j k 1,-, That the second appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the decree and judgment of the XI Additional District & Sessions 4 ■. Judge Court(FTC), Guntur be and is hereby confirmed; That the defendant be and is hereby directed to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the 2"^^ respondent in the second appeal within a period of three (03) months from the date of this judgment; and That each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. 3. 4. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XI Additional District & Sessions Judge Court(FTC), Guntur Guntur District 2. The Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District. 3. Three CD Copies VNA s HIGH COURT DATED;09/05/2025 DECREE SA.No.1363 of 2011 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL