Judgment reserved on 20-11-2025 Judgment pronounced on 08-12-2025 Judgment uploaded on 08-12-2025 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 720 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-08-2012 in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1, respondent No. 1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No. 2 herein is defendant No. 2 before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for declaration of his title over plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of possession and for costs. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and directed defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of plaint scheduler property to the 2 plaintiff within one month from the date of the judgment. Felt aggrieved of the same, unsuccessful defendant No. 1 in the above said suit filed A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit. 6. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 86 of 2009, is as follows: The plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property from one Alla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Bushaiah, on 04-04-2008 vide document No. 1172/2008 of S.R.O., Koretipadu. The said Alla Venkateswara Rao purchased plaint schedule property and some other property, comes to 1200 square yards, from one Tarumani Subba Rao, S/o Sri Ranga Rao, on 30-06-1979 vide document No. 3856/1979. On 10-12-2008, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from plaint schedule property and grabbed it stating that they are the owners of plaint schedule property. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that one Bikki Venkateswarlu, in collusion with defendant No. 2, executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 regarding plaint schedule property on 3 21-10-2002 vide document No. 7528/2002 by impersonating the said Alla Venkateswara Rao. Defendant No. 2 sold plaint schedule property to defendant No. 1 on 11-05-2006 vide document No. 6328/2006 and physical possession was not delivered to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff questioned Alla Venkateswara Rao who stated that he never executed any sale deed and he never sold plaint schedule property to anybody except to the plaintiff. Since Alla Venkateswara Rao did not execute any document in favour of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 did not get any title over it and he had no right to convey the property to defendant No. 1 and thereby, defendant No. 1 did not get any title over plaint schedule property. 7. Case of defendant No. 1, as seen from her written statement, is as follows: The plaintiff has neither title nor possession over plaint schedule property and she purchased the same from defendant No. 2 and availed loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited on 11-05-2006. Defendant No. 2 purchased plaint schedule property on 21-10-2002. Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff colluded together and got filed the suit. Defendant No. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant No. 2 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in O.S.No. 227 of 2008 and the said suit was decreed on merits. The 4 sale deed of the plaintiff is a fabricated one. Defendant No. 1 mortgaged plaint schedule property with LIC and got mutated her name in municipal records and she has been paying taxes over it. 8. Case of defendant No. 2, as seen from her written statement, is as follows: The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Alla Venkateswara Rao and Bikki Venkateswarlu since the plaintiff claims that he had purchased plaint schedule property through a registered sale deed from Alla Venkateswara Rao and makes allegations against Bikki Venkateswarlu. The suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff does not seek cancellation of the said two registered sale deeds. Defendant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser of plaint schedule property. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: Issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for? 5 (3) Whether the sale deeds bearing document Nos. 7528/2002 dated 21-10-2002 and 6328/2006 dated 11-05-2006 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? (4) Whether the defendants are bona fide purchasers? (5) Whether the suit in the present form without seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deeds is maintainable? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for past and future profits as prayed for? (7) To what relief?" 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. 11. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, unsuccessful defendant No. 1 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the first appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration: "(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 6 (2) Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deeds stand in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2? (3) Whether Bikki Venkateswarlu executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by impersonating Alla Venkateswara Rao? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property? (5) Whether the defendants perfected their title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of plaint schedule property? (7) Whether the sale deeds dated 21-10-2002 vide document No. 7528/2002 and document No. 6328/2006 dated 11-05-2006 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? (8) Whether the judgment and decree under appeal dated 06-08-2012 in the suit in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, are sustainable in law and on facts, or whether any interference is necessary, if so, on what grounds and to which extent? (9) To what relief?" 12. The first appellate Court, after hearing arguments, answered the points, as above, against the appellant-defendant No. 1 and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the appellant-defendant No. 1. Felt aggrieved of 7 the same, defendant No. 1 in O.S.No. 86 of 2009 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing learned counsel on both sides, a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on 17-10-2025 on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable when the possession of the appellant is admitted beyond the statutory period even under invalid document and whether the title of the appellant become adverse to the 1st respondent or not? (b) Whether the suit for recovery of possession is maintainable when the respondents admit the possession of the appellant beyond statutory period and whether the primary relief is governed by Article 59 of Limitation Act or not? (c) Whether suit can be rejected under the provisions of Article 59 of Limitation Act or not? (d) Admittedly a sale deed is exists with delivery of possession, execution of subsequent sale deed is maintainable in the eye of law? (e) A sale deed can be executed without cancelation of earlier sale deed, without handing over the property under sale deed is maintainable in the eye of law? 8 (f) Whether the judgment passed by the 1st appellate Court is justified as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.? " 14. Heard Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No. 1, and Sri Alapati Lalith Nikil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-plaintiff. 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of C.P.C., 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. 16. In Bhagwan Sharma Vs. Bani Ghosh1, 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." 17. In Kondira Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar2, the Apex Court held as follows: 1 AIR 1993 SC 398 9 "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 admissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." 18. The undisputed fact is one Alla Venkateswara Rao is the original owner of plaint schedule property i.e. in an extent of 110 square yards contains RCC roof house therein with door No. 1-36-28/1. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased plaint schedule property under Ex.A1- registered sale deed dated 04-04-2008 from its original owner Alla Venkateswara Rao and the said Venkateswara Rao purchased the same together with other property under registered sale deed dated 30-06-1979 and the title document of the vendor of the plaintiff is filed and the same is marked as Ex.A2. 19. To prove the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also got examined his vendor as P.W.2, who also supports the case of the plaintiff. P.W.2 narrated in his evidence that he is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he purchased the same together with some other property, in total extent of 1200 square yards, from one Tarumani Subba Rao under the original of Ex.A2 on 30-06-1979 and that out of the said property, he sold plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under Ex.A1- 2 AIR 1999 SC 471 10 registered sale deed dated 04-04-2008 and he also delivered possession to the plaintiff. P.W.2 further deposed in his evidence that one Bikki Venkateswarlu hatched an evil plan to knockout plaint schedule property in collusion with the defendants by impersonating him, the said Bikki Venkateswarlu executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by affixing his photograph in the place of vendor by name Alla Venkateswara Rao in the registered document itself dated 21-10-2002 and defendant No. 2 in turn alienated the same under registered sale deed dated 11-05-2006 to defendant No. 1. P.W.2 further deposed that both the aforesaid sale deeds of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are invalid since defendant No. 2 will not get any valid title from Bikki Venkateswarlu and that he also filed a criminal case vide C.C.No. 85 of 2009 against Bikki Venkateswarlu and defendant No. 1. 20. It is the case of the appellant-defendant No. 1 that she purchased plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed from defendant No. 2 on 11-05-2006 and her vendor-defendant No. 2 purchased the same on 21-10-2002. 21. In a suit for declaration of title and possession, the entire burden casts upon the plaintiff to prove his title and also to prove his vendor's title and he is not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case set up by the defendant. 11 22. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 10-12-2008, the defendants dispossessed him highhandedly and grabbed plaint schedule property. As stated supra, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of his vendor-P.W.2 and also relied on Exs.A1 and A2 to establish his title over plaint schedule property. It is contended by the plaintiff that on 04-04-2008, he purchased plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed from its original owner-P.W.2 and on 10-12-2008, the defendants highhandedly dispossessed him by saying that they are the owners of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further pleaded that later, he enquired the matter and came to know that one Bikki Venkateswarlu hatched a plan to knock away plaint schedule property and in execution of his evil plan, he colluded with defendant No. 2 and executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by impersonating Alla Venkateswara Rao by affixing his photograph on the sale deed with a view to grab plaint schedule property and thereafter, defendant No. 2 sold away the same to defendant No. 1 under registered sale deed dated 11-05-2006 without having any valid title. D.W.4, witness of the defendants, identified that photograph on the sale deed of defendant No. 2 belongs to Bikki Venkateswarlu. 23. The claim of defendant No. 1 is that she purchased plaint schedule property from defendant No. 2 under registered sale deed 12 dated 11-05-2006 and defendant No. 2 purchased the same from D.W.5. D.W.5-Bikki Venkateswarlu admitted in his evidence that the photograph in Ex.B5 belongs to him and he signed on the sale deed as Alla Venkateswara Rao. Though D.W.5 claims that he purchased plaint schedule property from one Mallela Krishna Murthy in the year 1993 roughly, he admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he did not file any document to show that he purchased plaint schedule property from Mallela Krishna Murthy and he knows that P.W.2 filed a criminal case for impersonation before learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Guntur. D.W.4, another witness of the defendants, also supports the case of the plaintiff. D.W.4 admits in his evidence that defendant No. 2 purchased plaint schedule property from D.W.5-Bikki Venkateswarlu and defendant No. 1 purchased the same from defendant No. 2 and he is having acquaintance with Bikki Venkateswarlu and the photograph annexed to the sale deed of defendant No. 2 is that of Bikki Venkateswarlu. The above admissions of D.W.5 and D.W.4 clearly go to show that D.W.5-Bikki Venkateswarlu signed as Alla Venkateswara Rao in the sale deed of defendant No. 2 and the photograph of D.W.5 is affixed instead of real owner-P.W.2 and signed as Alla Venkateswara Rao as if his name is Alla Venkateswara Rao and impersonated P.W.2- Alla Venkateswara Rao. Therefore, it is quite evident that D.W.5 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by 13 impersonating P.W.2. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that during pendency of the first appeal, D.W.5 was convicted on 15-09-2013 by learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. 24. The evidence on record shows that defendant No. 2 obtained a registered sale deed in the year 2002 from D.W.5 who is not the real owner and D.W.5/impersonator of P.W.2 executed a sale deed as if he is Alla Venkateswara Rao and signed on registered sale deed before sub-registrar. Therefore, defendant No. 2 will not get any valid title and the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of plaint schedule property is not valid and defendant No. 1 will not get any valid title. Therefore, the document executed by D.W.5/ impersonator is void ab initio and it conveys no title to defendant No. 2. Therefore, no title is conveyed under registered sale deed dated 11-05-2006 to defendant No. 1 from defendant No. 2. 25. It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant- defendant No. 1 that the appellant-defendant No. 1 availed loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited and mortgaged plaint schedule property and also got mutated plaint schedule property in her name by paying taxes to Guntur Municipal Corporation and even her predecessors in 14 title also paid taxes and she has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property through her predecessors in title for a period more than 30 years. Defendant No. 1, who is claiming title under registered sale deed of the year 2006, cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession because the very assertion of lawful title negatives the hostile, open, continuous and exclusive nature which are required for adverse possession. As per the registered sale deed produced by Alla Venkateswara Rao, he purchased plaint schedule property from one Tarumani Subba Rao, who is the real owner, under registered sale deed dated 30-06-1979 and certified copy of the said sale deed of the year 1979 is also field and the same is marked as Ex.A2 whereas D.W.5 admits that he purchased plaint schedule property from one Mallela Krishna Murthy but he did not file any document to show the same. The suit is filed in the year 2009. Defendant No. 1 purchased plaint schedule property from defendant No. 2 in the year 2006. Admittedly, defendant No. 2 is not having any valid title because he obtained sale deed from D.W.5 who is not the real owner. D.W.5 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 by impersonating Alla Venkateswara Rao and the photograph of D.W.5 is affixed on the sale deed by defendant No. 2 as if it is the photograph of P.W.2 and the same is supported by the evidence of D.Ws.4 and 5. Therefore, it is quite clear 15 that D.W.5 signed on the sale deed of defendant No. 2 by impersonating P.W.2. 26. It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that under the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit claim is barred by limitation. The suit is filed seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of an immovable property based on title. The claim of the plaintiff is that he purchased plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 04-04-2008 and he was illegally dispossessed by the defendants from out of plaint schedule property on 10-12-2008 and he filed the suit immediately in the month of January, 2009, seeking the relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession. Therefore, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the present facts, according to which the limitation prescribed for filing of such suit is 12 years from the date of dispossession by the defendants. Therefore, the present suit is not at all barred by law of limitation. 27. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No. 1 would contend that when the sale deed of defendant No. 2 exists with delivery of possession, execution of subsequent sale deed is therefore not at all maintainable in the eye of law and the sale deed under Ex.A1 cannot be executed without cancellation of earlier sale deed. In the 16 case at hand, registered sale deed dated 21-10-2002 was executed by D.W.5 by impersonation. Therefore, the said sale deed is void ab initio. Hence, delivery of possession as mentioned in void document is meaningless. The plaintiff obtained sale deed in the year 2008 from original owner-P.W.2. Since the sale deed of defendant No. 2 is void ab initio, there is no need to cancel the same. Therefore, the said document does not require cancellation and it can be simply ignored. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No. 1 would further contend that the judgment passed by the first appellate Court is not in accordance with provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. As seen from the judgment of the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court framed the relevant points for determination to decide the first appeal and by discussing the evidence of each witness, the first appellate Court pronounced its judgment. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. 29. In the case at hand, on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and on re- appreciation of entire evidence on record on all issues decided by the trial Court and after framing points for consideration as required under 17 Section 96 of C.P.C., the first appellate Court rightly dismissed the first appeal. In the light of the material on record and upon earnest consideration, it is now manifest that the substantial questions of law raised in the course of hearing in the second appeal on behalf of the appellant did not arise or remain for consideration. This Court is satisfied that this second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law for determination. 30. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment dated 10-07-2025 in A.S.No. 240 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appellant-defendant No. 1 is directed to deliver vacant possession of plaint schedule property to respondent No. 1-plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. Each party do bear their own costs. __________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 08-12-2025, JSK 18 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 720 OF 2025 DATE: 08-12-2025 JSK