APHC010526862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 757/2024 Between: Guntamadugu Madhusudhan Raju and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Guntamadugu Bhaskar Raju and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: 2 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.757 of 2024 Judgment: This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 05-07-2024 in A.S.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 05-1-2019 in O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The appellants herein are the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.105 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District, with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 3 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 defendants/appellant Nos.1 and 2 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. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.105 of 2017, is as follows: The plaint schedule properties belong to one Konduru Venkata Raju and Konduru Venkata Subba Raju. The plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule properties through an Agreement of Sale dated 03.03.1980, for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,200/- from the aforesaid owners. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties as absolute owner and thereafter, he applied for mutation of his name in revenue records. The Revenue authorities issued ROR, 13-B Namuna and 13-C Namuna in favour of the plaintiff. After due enquiry, the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the plaintiff and the same was also recognized by the Revenue authorities. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule properties. Further, the plaintiff has raised paddy crop and the defendants attempted to encroach upon the plaint schedule properties. On 01.10.2017, the defendants have objected the plaintiff from doing cultivation and threatened him by stating that they will not allow the plaintiff to cultivate the schedule property peacefully, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 4 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 7. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments; the same was adopted by the defendant No.2 and further contended as follows: The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant No.1 and the plaint schedule properties were purchased by their father by name Guntamadugu Varada Raju in the year 1965 from Konduru Venkata Raju and Subba Raju. Thereafter, the father of the defendant No.1 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties till his death. Subsequently, the plaint schedule properties were orally partitioned among the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. In the said partition, the land to an extent of Ac.1.421/2 cents fell to the share of the plaintiff. Thereafter, in the year 1992, the defendant No.1 came to Naidupet and taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiff has created the document dated 03.03.1980 and illegally mutated his name in the revenue records. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the suit for injunction against the co-owner is not maintainable. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. The defendant No.3 remained ex-parte in the suit. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? 5 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked. On behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked. The defendant No.3 remained as ex-parte before the trial Court. 10. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta, SPSR Nellore District, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the appeal suit A.S.No.27 of 2019 before the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, wherein, the following points came up for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiff has established his possession over all the four plaint schedule properties, as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether there are any valid and tenable grounds to interfere and to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court? 3. To what relief? 11. The learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendant/appellant Nos.1 to 3 and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.105 of 2017 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 6 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 12. Heard Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appellants/defendants and Sri Khambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, 1 (2007) 8 SCC 155 7 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for them to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellants is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The admitted facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a simple suit for permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule properties and the properties shown in the plaint schedule properties are the land to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of land in Sy.No.213-7, land to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Sy.No.213-10, land to an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Sy.No.213-8 and land to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents in Sy.No.213-9. The defendant No.1 is the brother of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 is the wife of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 is the maternal uncle of the defendant No.1. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the plaint schedule properties under an 8 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 Agreement of Sale dated 03.03.1980, for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,200/- and from that date onwards, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement before the trial Court, the defendant No.2, who is none other than the wife of the defendant No.1 adopted the said written statement, and the defendant No.3 remained ex-parte in the suit proceedings before the trial Court. 17. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 03.03.1980, under which the plaint schedule properties were purchased. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties and all the plaint schedule properties were purchased by his father in the year 1965 from Sri K.Venkata Raju and Sri K.Venkata Subba Raju. Admittedly, the alleged agreement which relates to the year 1965 has not been filed by the defendants. Therefore, it is evident that as per the contention of both the parties, the original owners are one and the same namely viz., K.Venkata Raju and Sri K.Venkata Subba Raju. 18. Admittedly, the plaintiff herein filed a simple suit for permanent injunction. It is well settled that as a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession. Normally, the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue, the prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding of possession. It is also equally well settled that the findings of title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issues regarding the title. “Where the 9 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 averments regarding the title are based in the plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate, examine or render a finding on a question of title in a suit for injunction”. 19. The respondent/plaintiff relied on Exs.A-1 to A-16. Ex.A-1 is the original Pattadar Passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ozili in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1998. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3, Ex.A-2 is the Namuna issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ozili dated 31.03.1998 and Ex.A-3 is the Namuna issued by the Tahsildar, Ozili, dated 31.03.1998. Exs.A-2 and A-3 clearly show that the plaintiff made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer seeking for certificate declaring that the alienation/transfer in favour of the plaintiff is valid. Exs.A-2 and A-3 also goes to show that on receipt of the said application from the plaintiff, the Mandal Revenue Officer made an enquiry and after conducting the same, the said alienation is validated and a certificate was also issued by the Revenue authorities under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Therefore, the said Order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer regularizing the transaction under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971 is said to be legal. The Order under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971 was not challenged by the appellants before the Appellate Authority; therefore, the said order reached its finality. 20. Ex.A-4 is the Mee Seva copy of 1B Namuna (ROR), dated 03.10.2017, Ex.A-5 is the Attested copy of 1B Namuna (ROR) issued by the Tahsildar, Ozili. The name of the plaintiff is shown as the possessor in Ex.A-4 and 10 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 Ex.A-5. Ex.A-6 is the Mee Seva copy of 1B Namuna (ROR), dated 04.03.2013, said to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Ozili and the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as the pattadar for all the four (04) properties which are mentioned in the plaint schedule. Ex.A-7 to Ex.A-10 are the Mee Seva copies of the Adangal dated 04.11.2013, for the Fasili 1423 for the year 2013; it shows that the plaintiff is in a possession and enjoyer of all the four (04) plaint schedule properties. Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-14 are the Mee Seva copies of the Adangal dated 04.11.2013, for the Fasili 1427 of the corresponding year 2017. Ex.A-15 is the statement said to have been given by the wife and the sons of Mr. Guntamadugu Rama Raju and the son of Mr. Varadaraju by name Mr. Guntamadugu Madhushudhana Raju. All the aforesaid documents go to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties by the date of filing of the suit. 21. The oral evidence of P.W.1/plaintiff is well supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3 on all aspects. As stated supra, the aforesaid documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff herein is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff also narrated the threat of dispossession made by the defendants in the plaint as well as in his evidence. The law is well settled that “in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to interfere with the lawful possession of the plaintiff”. In the 11 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 case at hand, the plaintiff proved that by the date of filing the suit, he is in a lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties and the defendants made an attempt to trespass into the plaint schedule properties. 22. To disprove the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the defendants relied on Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-9. The defendant No.1 specifically pleaded in the written statement itself that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties and all the plaint schedule properties were purchased by his father in the year 1965. To prove the said statement no evidence was produced by the appellants. Ex.B-7 to Ex.B-9 are the exchange of legal notices and postal acknowledgments, the appellants are strongly relying on Ex.B-2. Ex.B-2 is the Attested Photostat Copy of the No.3 Adangal for the Fasili 1402 of the corresponding year 1992, it shows that for an extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Sy.No.213/10, the defendant No.1 is in possession, but the name of the pattadar is shown as Mr. Venkata Raju, which relates to the Fasili 1402 corresponding with the year 1992. Ex.B-2 is no way helpful to prove the defense of the appellants that the appellant No.1 is in a possession of part of the plaint schedule properties. As stated supra, the suit is filed in the year 2017 and the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff supports the case of the plaintiff that he is in a possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date of filing the suit. The defendants also relied on Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-6. The defendant No.1/D.W.1 admits in his evidence in cross- examination that the name of the plaintiff is mentioned in Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-7 as the owner and possessor of plaint schedule properties. 12 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff proved that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties and his possession was recognized by the revenue authorities. Furthermore, the documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly establishes that by the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties and he is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and accordingly, the suit is decreed by the trial Court. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge also arrived at the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide A.S.No.27 of 2019, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District . 24. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court 13 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 25. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki2 . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 26. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 29.10.2025 SRT 2 AIR 2006 SC 1975 14 VGKR, J. SA_757_2024 06 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.757 of 2024 Dt. 29.10.2025 SRT