APHC010542092012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 585/2012 Between: G.n. Ramachandra Reddy (died) and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND A Narayana Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. B SOMASEKHAR 2. UNNAM MURALIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.585 of 2012 Judgment: This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 12.04.2012 in A.S.No.155 of 2004, on the file of learned District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2004 in O.S.No.966 of 1998, on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 and 6 to 8, the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 7 herein are the defendants 2 to 5, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.966 of 1998, on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. During the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st respondent died and respondents 8 to 10 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.966 of 1998, on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer for seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound wall shown as „IJFEGHLQ‟ in the rough sketch raised on the west, east and northern sides of the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and also for costs of the suit. Initially, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants 1 and 2 only. During pendency of the suit, defendants 1 and 2 died and defendants 3 to 10 were brought on record as their legal representatives. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit in O.S.No.966 of 1998, on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.155 of 2004, on the file of learned District Judge, Chittoor. The learned District Judge, Chittoor, allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 1 and 6 to 8 in the 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. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.966 of 1998, is as follows: (a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.210/2 wet Ac.0.03 cents of Nangamangalam revenue village which is morefully described in the plaint schedule and the same is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Originally, there was a coconut garden in the suit property. There is a putta on the south corner of the suit property and the same is being worshipped as 'Moogaputlamma' deity by the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff's family members are also allowing the other persons to worship the said deity. The said 'Moogaputlamma‟ temple was founded by the forefathers of the plaintiff. During the re- survey and re-settlement conducted by the Government during the year from 1913 to 1916 also, the said land was recorded as a putta land of the plaintiff's grandfather A.Venkat Reddy. The plaintiff's grandfather, the plaintiff‟s father and plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and with the permission of the plaintiff only, other villagers are worshipping the deity in the suit property. (b) About thirty years ago the plaintiff and 1st defendant constructed a room around the 'Moogaputlamma' deity over the existing stone slab pandal to a height of eight feet, put up stone slabs with concrete slabs and varandah was also extended towards east with zinc sheets and the said varandah was shown as 'ABCD' in the rough sketch and it covers an extent of Ac.0.01 cent in the suit property. The plaintiff has been using the said shed for keeping his agricultural implements and devotees were also using the shed for taking shelter. A hundi was also installed in the suit temple. The hundi collections were hardly sufficient to lit the light and other maintenance of the temple. In the recent past three years, there are huge collections from the hundi and the defendants taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff in the village, opened the hundi and misused the hundi collections without knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendants have no right to open the hundi. There is a six feet gap between the temple structure and shed and the plaintiff has been making use of the said open space as a passage to reach the temple and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he is entitled to enter the suit premises from the western side or from any other side. (c) While so, in the month of September, 1998, when the plaintiff was at Nandayal, the defendants herein highhandedly raised compound wall on all four sides of the temple to a height of 4 ½ feet and opened a gate on the southern side of the temple into their lands in S.No.210/3 and thereby closing the plaintiff's access into the suit land from western side and also on northern and eastern side. The defendants have no manner of right to construct the compound wall around the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 7. The 2nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court, which was adopted by the 1st defendant. Both defendants 1 and 2 died during the pendency of the suit duly represented by their legal representatives / defendants 3 to 10. The brief averments of the written statement of 2nd defendant are as follows: Originally the father of the 1st defendant G.Narayana Reddy was the trustee of temple and later on the 1st defendant became trustee and now the 2nd defendant, who is son of the 1st defendant, is acting as a trustee for the temple. One Madire Gowdu, Rama Mandadi and Perumallu Gowdu are worked as pujaries of the temple and one Subramanyam was also attending the poojari works for the past thirty years in the suit property. 'Moogaputlamma‟ temple is the oldest temple existing since more than hundred years and the land in S.No.210/2 and S.No.210/3 shown in the rough sketch filed along with the written statement has been in possession and enjoyment of „Moogaputlamma‟ deity having dedicated by the then owners of land about more than hundred years ago. About hundred years ago, a small temple was constructed over 'Moogaputlamma‟ deity with stone slabs and the same was renovated and extended between 1958 to 1968 and the same renovation of construction of temple was done with the donation and contribution of amount received from the devotees of 'Moogaputlamma‟. There was no entrance either on the west, north and east of the temple at any time. The suit temple also purchased Ac.0.16 cents of land from Dileep Kumar through a registered sale deed which was taken in the name of Panchala Devatha duly represented by the 2nd defendant on 13.02.1997 and the defendants also planted coconut trees four years ago for the purpose of temple. The suit property absolutely belongs to 'Moogaputlamma‟ and the said deity is in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner thereof for the past hundred years and the said deity also perfected its right, title and possession and the plaintiff has no right in the suit survey number which is in occupation and enjoyment of 'Moogaputlamma' deity. The plaintiff is a retired Mandal Revnue Officer and he manipulated all revenue records and filed the suit. All improvements in the suit temple were made by contributions and donations from devotees and also from hundi collections. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit and sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.210/2 of Nangamangalam village ? (2) Whether the temple was dedicated by the owner of the land ? (3) Whether the plaint schedule temple is a public temple and whether D-1 was the trustee of the said temple at any time ? (4) Whether the defendants had right to construct a compound wall around the plaint schedule land ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of mandatory injunction for removal of the compound wall on the east, west and northern sides of the compound wall ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, if so to what ? (7) Whether the suit without prayer for declaration of title is maintainable ? (8) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necess parties ? (9) To What relief ? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.29 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.31 were marked. 10. The learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.155 of 2004, on the file of learned District Judge, Chittoor, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: (1) Whether O.S.966/98 for mandatory injunction and for delivery of possession without a relief of declaration of right and title in respect of the suit schedule property is maintainable? (2) Whether the temple existing in the suit schedule property is private temple or public temple? (3) Whether the family members of the defendants are Dharmakarthas / Trustees of the temple existing in the suit schedule property? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction to remove the compound wall on the west, east and northern sides described as “IJEFGHLQ” in Ex.A.29 Plaint Rough Sketch? (5) Whether the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.9.2004 is incorrect, invalid, illegal, unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside? (6) To what relief the appellant / plaintiff is entitled to? 11. The learned District Judge, Chittoor i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 1 and 6 to 8 in O.S.No.966 of 1998 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 28.06.2012, the Composite High Court framed the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the relief of mandatory injunction granted by the lower appellate Court and the delivery of possession of the property is not proper? And 2) Whether the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and reasoning given by the trial Court? 13. Heard Sri B.Somasekhar, learned counsel for the appellants / defendants 1 and 6 to 8 and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff and respondents 8 to 10. 14. In a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot substantiate its own opinion for that of First Appellate Court unless the Court finds that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts are erroneous being, (i) contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court or (iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence. 15. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and if the First Appellate Court has exercises in its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in a second appeal. 16. The plaintiff is seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the compound wall shown as „IJFEGHLQ‟ in the rough sketch raised on the west, east and northern sides of the plaint schedule property and also delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. 17. In a case of Brahma Nand Puri vs. Neki Puri Since deceased represented by Mathra Puri and another1, the Apex Court held as follows: “The plaintiff‟s suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned counsel is right in that submission”. In a case of Jagdish Narain vs. Nawab Sai Ahmed Khan2, the Privy Council held as follows: “In a suit in ejectment the plaintiffs can succeed only on the strength of their own title, and there is no obligation upon the defendants to plead possible defects in the plaintiffs‟ title which might manifest themselves when the title is disclosed. It is sufficient that in the written statement the defendants deny the plaintiffs‟ title, and under this plea, they can avail themselves of any defect which such title discloses.” 1 AIR 1965 SC 1506 2 1945 SCC OnLine PC 56 In a case of A. Ramloo and others vs. G. Sreeramachandra Murthy and others3, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: In a ruling reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catheolicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, AIR 1954 SC 526, it has been held by their Lordships as under: "That the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title. This can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. A mere destruction of the defendants title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere." In a case of K. Venkatasubba Reddy vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) by L.Rs.4, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held as follows: “A Division Bench of this Court also in Chakicherla Adilakshmamma v. Almakuru Rama Rao and Ors,- (3) AIR 1973 AP 149. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 526 (cited supra) held that "in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff is liable to be nonsuited, if he fails to establish his own title irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not." The law laid down by the Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this Court in the ejectment suits is also applicable to the suits for declaration of title. Thus, the plaintiff must succeed by establishing his own title, by adducing satisfactory evidence and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case. For the aforesaid settled legal position, it is quite clear that since the plaintiff is seeking eviction of the defendants and recovery of possession, therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove his absolute right and title in the plaint schedule property and he is not supposed to depend upon the weaknesses in the case set up by the defendants. In the case at hand, to prove the title of the plaintiff, no documentary evidence is filed by the plaintiff except relying on Exs.A-1 to A-25 said to have 3 1999 SCC OnLine AP 80 4 1999 (1) APLJ 416 (HC) been issued by the Revenue Department. It is well settled that entries in Revenue records will not confer any title in respect of any immovable property. Furthermore, specific contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property herein is ancestral property of the plaintiff. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff did not choose to file any document of title either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court. At least, the plaintiff did not choose to file title of his ancestors either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court 18. P.W.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. He stated in his evidence affidavit in chief examination itself that the temple in the plaint schedule property was founded by his forefathers and they have been worshipping the said deity since the time of his forefathers. Another witness of the plaintiff i.e. P.W.2, who is a close relative of the plaintiff, reiterated in his evidence in chief examination itself that the plaint schedule temple was constructed by the forefathers of the plaintiff and they worshipped the deity therein as „Moogaputlamma' and the plaint schedule land is a patta land of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid own admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is evident in the plaint schedule that a temple has been constructed. 19. The plaintiff relied on Exs.A.1 to A.25 said to have been issued by the revenue department. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A.26 case summary and discharge summary issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.A.27 proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, dated 08.12.1998, Ex.A.28 O.P. Chit issued by the Doctor dated 12.09.1998 and Ex.A.29 a rough sketch. The plaintiff as P.W.1 admits in cross-examination itself that in the Revenue Adangal Account, Sy.No.210/2 was shown as a temple and the 2nd defendant purchased Ac.0.16 cents of land on the north- west corner of the said temple. He further admits that there were no personal belongings were found in the shed of the temple in the plaint schedule property at the time of inspection by the Advocate-commissioner. He further admits that the temple is shown in Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.21 for the suit schedule survey number. He further admits that the suit temple is shown in Ex.A.23 in Adangal itself and the part of the temple premises is situated in Sy.No.210/3. He further admits that there is an entrance on the southern side of the temple and there are other two ways to reach the suit schedule temple premises. 20. As stated supra, in view of the above settled legal position, in a suit for specific relief of eviction of the defendants and possession of the immovable property, the plaintiff has to prove that he is having absolute title in the plaint schedule property. To prove the title of the plaintiff, no documentary evidence is filed by the plaintiff except relying on Exs.A-1 to A-25 said to have been issued by the Revenue Department. As stated supra, as per the own evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, a temple has been constructed in the plaint schedule. 21. It is admitted case of both the parties that the temple is in existence in the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the suit temple was dedicated to the public at large and the public at large are entering into the temple premises for offering prayers. The suit land was dedicated to „Moogaputlamma‟ deity without any restrictions for the public to enter into the schedule premises for offering prayers. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the temple in the plaint schedule property was founded by his forefathers and they have been worshipping the said deity since the time of his forefathers. Even as per the evidence of P.W.2, D.W.4/ Lakshmamma is the present pujari of the temple. Ex.B.1 goes to show that the accounts were being maintained by the temple since 1947 onwards and Exs.B.1 to B.20, B.21 to B.26 and Ex.B.28 clearly reveals that the public at large made contributions and donations for development of the temple and compound wall was constructed and temple was also developed by spending hundi collection amounts as well as contributions made by the devotees. 22. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence itself about existence of the temple in the plaint schedule and he also admits about the well dug by one Munaswamy Reddy in the suit schedule property for the purpose of temple as well as devotees, who are visiting the temple for offering the prayers. The power supplied to the temple was also provided in the year 1987 itself. Another admission made by the plaintiff is that there is no restriction on the devotees to enter into the plaint schedule temple premises for offering prayers. As stated supra, in the plaint itself, the plaintiff pleaded that the plaint schedule temple was founded by his forefathers. Furthermore, the material available on record reveals that the accounts were maintained by the temple since 1947 onwards and there is ample documentary evidence to show that the public at large made contributions and donations for development of the temple and compound wall was constructed and temple was also developed by spending hundi collection amounts as well as contributions made by the devotees. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction to remove the compound wall and also delivery of possession as sought by the plaintiff. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit, but the learned first appellate Judge ignored the material evidence on record and drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously. 23. Learned first appellate Judge without properly appreciating the entire evidence on record, reversed the finding given by the learned trial Judge and the findings given by the first appellate Court are manifestly perversed and contrary to the evidence on record and the learned first appellate Judge has not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record in a proper manner and came to wrong conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of eviction and also recovery of possession as prayed for. As stated supra, the first appellate Judge ignored the material evidence on record and drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying law erroneously. 24. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned first appellate Judge and confirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the Second Appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 09.10.2025 ARR 34 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.585 of 2012 Dt. 09.10.2025 ARR