APHC010076452024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 176/2024 Between: 1. KURICHETI KANNAMMA, W/O K.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE. R/O. D.NO.25-1-1005, POLICE COLONY. .A.K.NAGAR, NELLORE-524004. 2. THIKKAVARAPU VENKATARAMI REDDY,, S/O.T.VENKU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. DAINARAMADUGU VILLAGE, BUCHIREDDYPALEM MANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. KANIATI BRAHMA REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.25-9-263, 5TH CROSS ROAD. Z.P.COLONY, PODALAKURU ROAD, NELLORE- 524004. 4. KAMATI SUNEEL KUMAR REDDY., S/O.BRAHMA REDDY, .AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS. R/O. D.NO.25-9-263, 5TH CROSS ROAD. Z.P.COLONY, PODALAKURU ROAD, NELLORE- 524004. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. INDURU VENKATESWARULU, S/O.I.VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5-10-5, GIRIDI STREET, L.A.R.SAGARAM, NIAUDPETA VILLAGE AND MANDALAM, SPSRNELLORE DISTIICT. 2. INDUM LAKSHMAMMA, W/O.I.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCIHOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.5-10-5, GIRIDI STIEET, L.A.R.SAGARAM, NIAUDPETA VILLAGE AND MANDALAM, SPSRNELLORE DISTRICT. 3. YANAMALA BAYYAPA REDDY, S/O VENKU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. VASUDHA REAL ESTATES, BRAHMANANDAPURAM, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section ___________ against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S No.02 of 2021, dated. 10.10.2023 on the file of the III ADITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NELLORE confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 741 of 2014, dated 03.12.2020. on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, At Nellore IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to condone the delay of two (2) days in filing the above Appeal SA. 176 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgement and Decree dated 03.12.2020 in O.S.No.741 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, At Nellore as confirmed by Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2023 in AS.02 of 2021 the file of III Aditional District Judge Court Nellore and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY The Court made the following: 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 10.10.2023 in A.S.No.2 of 2021, on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 03.12.2020 in O.S.No.741 of 2014, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1, 3 to 5, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.741 of 2014, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.741 of 2014, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, with a prayer for declaration of their right and title to the plaint schedule property, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession, and sale deeds executed by 4th defendant, 3rd defendant in favour of 1st and 5th defendants, General Power of Attorney executed by 5th defendant in favour of 4th defendant are declared as null and void as prayed for. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.741 of 2014, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 1, 3 to 5 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.2 of 2021, on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 1, 3 to 5 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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.741 of 2014, is as follows: (a) One Induru Subrahmanyam, son of the plaintiffs purchased plaint A schedule property i.e. house site in an extent of 33 1/3 ankanams in plot No.454 in S.No.107 of Ambapuram village on 22.04.2003 under a registered sale deed and unfortunately he died in a road accident on 16.03.2013 and the plaintiffs, who are parents of the said Subrahmanyam succeeded to the plaint schedule property. (b) M/s Vasudha Real estate, Kasidalavari Agraharam, Pogathota, Nellore, represented by its Managing Partner, Yanamala Bayyapa Reddy purchased an extent of Acs.2.75 cents from Inakurthi Yasodamma under registered sale deed dt.13.12.1995 and one Thikkavarapu Venkatrami Reddy and Karnati Brahma Reddy purchased an extent of Ac.4.65 cents from Inakurthi Sridhara Naidu under registered sale deed dt.31.03.1999 situated in S.No.107 and later the said Yanamala Bayyapa Reddy, Thikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy and Karnati Brahma Reddy mutually agreed to make a lay out for the total extent purchased by them and to sell the plots proportionately and accordingly, they laid out a venture and sold the plots. Said Yanamala Bayyapa Reddy sold and registered the plots under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estates and Thikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy and Karnati Brahma Reddy sold and registered their plots in their individual capacity. (c) Thereafter, when the 1st plaintiff went to the said plot to his surprise, he found terraced house in half of their plot on the southern side and when he enquired the persons who are present in the house, the 1st defendant and her husband informed him that they purchased it from Karnati Brahmareddy and got constructed the house. The 1st plaintiff also had shown the sale deed under which his son purchased the plot to them and requested them to vacate the plot, but the 1st defendant and her husband refused to deliver the same. (d) Since the son of the plaintiffs purchased the plaint „A‟ schedule property i.e., plot no.454 under registered sale deed dt.22.04.2003 which is prior to the alleged sale deed dt.4.11.2004 under which the 1st defendant claimed to have been purchased the said plot. The sale deed of the 1st defendant is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant who also purchased the land along with 4th defendant is not shown as vendor along with the 4th defendant in the said sale deed. (e) By the date of filing of the suit, half of the portion in plot no.454 of northern side of plaint B schedule property was vacant and as such the plaintiffs constructed a compound wall and erected a notice board stating that property belongs to the plaintiffs and the trespassers will be prosecuted. The 4th defendant issued a caveat and contended that the 5th defendant purchased the caveat petition schedule property from 3rd defendant under registered sale deed dt.4.9.2010 and the 5th defendant is the son of the 4th defendant and he executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of 4th defendant and 4th defendant is in possession of the said property and subsequent to the filing of this suit. the 4th defendant and 5th defendant demolished the compound wall and notice board and constructed a shed in the said site and making efforts to get electrical connection without any right and title over the said plot. The defendants 2 to 5 added subsequently by including the relief of mandatory injunction. Thus the suit. 7. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the material averments in the plaint and contended as follows: One Thikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy and Karnati Bramha Reddy jointly purchased an extent of Acs.4.65 cents in S.No.107 of Ambapuram village and Karnati Brahma Reddy alone sold half of the plot no.454 under the registered sale deed dt.4.11.2004 in favour of this defendant and possession was also delivered to her on the date of sale itself and since the date of purchase, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said plot and constructed a house and also paying electricity consumption charges and house taxes and plaintiffs with a molafide intention to knock away the plot and encroached into the said plot and filed this suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. 8. The 2nd defendant remained ex parte. The defendants 3 to 5 also filed written statement admitting purchase of land in an extent of Acs.4.65 cents by the defendants 3 and 4 jointly and contending that the 5th defendant purchased plot No.454 on the northern side in an extent of 16 ankanams 48 square feet under the registered sale deed dt.04.09.2010 from the 3rd defendant and took delivery of possession and constructed a house and paying electricity consumption charges and house tax and later, he executed a General Power of Attorney deed in favour of his father 4th defendant and since then, the 4th defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and plaintiff without having any manner of right over the said property filed the suit to knock away the same. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaring that they are having absolute right and title over plaint “A” schedule property i.e., Plot No.454 and for recovery of possession of “A” schedule property from the defendants, by cancelling the sale deed Nos.17963/2004, dt.04.11.2004, 11289/2010 dt.04.09.2010 and GPA No.455/2015 dt.28.01.2015 as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for directing the defendant by granting Mandatory Injunction to remove the constructions made by them over the plaintiffs site shown as “A” Schedule within the time fixed by the Court as prayed for. (3) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked. 11. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, 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 defendants 1, 3 to 5 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2021, on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein, the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiffs could prove their title over the plaint A schedule property or not? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and for mandatory injunction as prayed for? 3) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court or not? 12. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants 1, 3 to 5 and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants 1, 3 to 5. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 1, 3 to 5 in O.S.No.741 of 2014 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 04.10.2024, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act will apply to the Ex.A8, sale deed and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration of title when admittedly Ex.A8, Ex.B1 are equal to Ex.A9 and B4 and other link documents are not executed by the same person? (2) Whether the Ex.A8 can be believed without any evidence by examining the persons having necessary knowledge about what is stated in the sale deed? (3) Whether non-examination of the second defendant in the suit is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs? (4) Whether the suit for declaration of title can be decreed in the absence of evidence of the plaintiffs, basedon the weakness in the case of the defendant? 14. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant Yanamala Bayyapa Reddy purchased an extent of Ac.2.75 cents of land in Sy.No.107 and 3rd and 4th defendants purchased an extent of Ac.4.65 cents in same Sy.No.107 under a registered sale deed and later all the three defendants intended to lay a venture in the entire extent of land Ac.7.40 cents to sell the plots individually and accordingly, all the three defendants i.e. defendants 2 to 4 laid the said land into plots and 2nd defendant sold plots laid in his land in the name of his firm Vasudha Real Estate and 3rd and 4th defendants sold away the plots fell in their land jointly in their individual name. It is also the specific case of the appellants in the written statement that the 3rd and 4th defendants did not lay venture along with the 2nd defendant and they laid the plots and sold the same individually and 5th defendant purchased northern portion of plot No.454 from the 3rd defendant and 1st defendant purchased the southern half of plot No.454 from the 4th defendant under a registered sale deed and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 18. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of declaration of title and in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a relief of declaration of title in the plaint „A‟ schedule property i.e. total plot No.454 in the plaint schedule. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance on Union of India and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others1, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows: “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. 16……. 17. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira [AIR 1959 SC 31] observed that: (AIR p. 37, para 20) “20. … in a suit [for declaration] if the plaintiffs are to succeed they must do so on the strength of their own title.” 18. In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh [(1995) 3 SCC 426] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 427c) 1 (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 269 “The onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff-respondent. … In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit.” And further held as follows: “19. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against (sic them), in the absence of establishment of the plaintiff's own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited.” The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws have no dispute. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.11, likewise the 1st defendant relied on her self testimony as D.W.2, the 4th defendant relied on his self testimony as D.W.1 and 3rd defendant relied on his own testimony as D.W.3. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the question of burden of proof pales into significance and the evidence led by both the parties required to be appreciated by the Court in order to record its finding in respect of each of the issues that ultimately determine the fate of the suit. Both the Courts below followed the aforesaid principles and arrived concurrent finding that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property i.e. plot No.454 and decreed the suit as prayed for and the learned first appellate Judge dismissed appeal filed by defendants 1, 3 to 5. 20. As seen from Ex.A.8 original registered sale deed filed by the plaintiffs, the son of the plaintiffs purchased plot No.454 under Ex.A.8 registered sale deed from Vasudha Real Estates, represented by the Managing Partner Yanamala Bayyapa Reddy. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that all the defendants 2 to 4 converted the said total land into plots and 2nd defendant sold the plots laid in his land in the name of the firm Vasudha Real Estate and defendants 3 and 4 sold away the plots fell in their land jointly in their individual name. The 3rd and 4th defendants denied in the written statement about laying of venture along with 2nd defendant. But the 4th defendant i.e. D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that after establishment of an office at Nellore and after laying out of venture in entire land of Ac.7.40 cents, himself and 3rd defendant sold away the plots in their individual capacity and the 2nd defendant sold plots in the capacity of Managing Partner of Vasudha Real Estate, Nellore. The 3rd defendant i.e. D.W.3 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that the total extent of Sy.No.107 is Ac.7.40 cents and it belongs to Inakurthi Yasodamma and out of Ac.7.40 cents, himself and 4th defendant purchased Ac.4.65 cents from Inakurthi Sridhara Naidu and remaining extent was purchased by the 2nd defendant. He further admits that layout was prepared for entire extent and himself, 4th defendant and 2nd defendant started office at Nellore under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate, Nellore. The above admissions of party to the suit i.e. 3rd defendant clearly goes to show that the defendants 2 to 4 started real estate business and started office under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate at Nellore. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that their only son purchased the total plot No.454 from Vasudha Real Estate, represented by the Managing Partner Bayyapa Reddy i.e. the 2nd defendant herein and their son died unmarried intestate by leaving his parents i.e. the plaintiffs herein. As stated supra, the plaint schedule property is situated in plot No.454. The neighbouring plots to plot No.454 are 453, 455 and 456. In cross-examination, D.W.3 i.e. 3rd defendant pleaded ignorance about the alienation of plot Nos.455, 456 by whom and also pleaded ignorance about the alienation of plot No.454 to the son of the plaintiffs. 21. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs clearly proves that the son of the plaintiffs purchased the plaint „A‟ schedule property i.e. total plot No.454 from Vasudha Real Estates, represented by its Managing Partner Bayyapa Reddy and the said Bayyapa Reddy is shown as 2nd defendant in the suit. The original registered sale deed is filed by the plaintiffs and same is marked as Ex.A.8. The plaintiffs also filed their vendors‟ document dated 13.12.1995 which is a link document to Ex.A.8 and the same is marked as Ex.A.1, it shows that an extent of Ac.2.75 cents was purchased by the 2nd defendant from one Inakurthi Yasodamma in the name of Vasudha Real Estate. It is the specific case of the defendants 3 and 4 that they started the real estate business along with 2nd defendant under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate and its Managing Partner is the 2nd defendant herein. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants 3 and 4 jointly purchased Ac.4.65 cents in the self same survey number and all the three defendants i.e. defendants 2 to 4 laid a venture in the total land of Ac.7.40 cents and they laid plots for total Ac.7.40 cents and 2nd defendant sold the plots in his land in the name of his firm Vasudha Real Estate and defendants 3 and 4 sold away the plots jointly fell to their share to all the purchasers. Though the defendants 3 and 4 denied about laying of venture along with the 2nd defendant, the 4th defendant / D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that himself and 3rd defendant established an office under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate and sold away the plots in the individual capacity after establishment of office at Nellore and 2nd defendant sold the plots in the capacity of Managing Partner of Vasudha Real Estate, Nellore. The 3rd defendant i.e. D.W.3 also admits that the 2nd defendant and 4th defendant along with him started office at Nellore under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate and they formed a layout in the entire extent and laid plots in total extent of Ac.7.40 cents. 22. The documentary evidence produced by the parties shows that the 3rd and 4th defendants jointly alienated the plots fell to their share since they jointly purchased the total extent of Ac.4.65 cents under a registered sale deed from their vendors, which is undisputed by the defendants 3 and 4. It is evident that the plaintiffs‟ sale deed is Ex.A.8 dated 22.04.2003. The son of the plaintiffs purchased the total plaint „A‟ schedule property total plot No.454 i.e. total extent in plot No.454 from Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner Bayyapa Reddy. The said Bayyapa Reddy is shown as 2nd defendant in the suit and he remained set ex parte. The 2nd defendant is not disputing the contents of Ex.A.8 and also not disputing the Ex.A.8 registered sale deed. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.8 shows that the vendor under Ex.A.8 purchased total extent of Ac.2.75 cents from out of which he sold total plaint „A‟ schedule property in plot No.454 to the son of the plaintiffs. 23. It is the admitted case of defendants 3 and 4 that they jointly alienated all the plots to third parties since they jointly purchased entire extent of Ac.4.65 cents from their vendor and they along with 2nd defendant started office under the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate. Whereas, Ex.B.1 shows that 1st defendant obtained a registered sale deed for half of the plot No.454 from the 4th defendant alone on 04.11.2004 and therefore, it is an invalid document, since the said sale deed is not at all obtained from the defendants 3 and 4, who are having joint right to alienate the plots fell to their share, to cover up the latches in the year 2010, the 3rd defendant alienated remaining half of plot No.454 to the 5th defendant, who is none other than the son of 4th defendant and during the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his father i.e. 4th defendant. Even as per the case of the 1st defendant, there are corrections in Ex.B.1 sale deed itself in plot No.454. Ex.B.1 itself shows that in plot No.454, last digit „4‟ was interlineated and she did not file the original registered sale deed. Furthermore, it is certified on the end of page of the sale deed Ex.B.1 “the corrections are nil”. Ex.B.1 sale deed is dated 04.11.2004. Whereas, the plaintiffs‟ sale deed is dated 22.04.2003. Ex.B.1 sale deed is latter document of Ex.A.8 sale deed of the plaintiffs. 24. As noticed supra, the sale deed of the plaintiffs is dated 22.04.2003 and the sale deed of the 1st defendant is dated 04.11.2004. Whereas, the plaintiffs‟ son purchased total plot No.454 from Vasudha Real Estate, represented by Managing Partner under a registered sale deed, who has got right and title in the said plot number to alienate the same. Whereas, the 1st defendant without enquiring the title of 4th defendant, he obtained sale deed for half of the extent in plot No.454 from the 4th defendant alone. Even as per the case of the defendants 3 and 4, they both purchased the total land of Ac.4.65 cents and they are having joint rights and they have to execute joint sale deeds in favour of the third party purchasers. In a case of Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh and others2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that “in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration…”. Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908 speaks “the registering officer may in his discretion refuse to accept for registration any document in which any interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration appears, unless the persons executing the document attest with their signatures or initials such interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.” 25. Furthermore, the 4th defendant is not having any exclusive valid right to alienate Ex.B.1 property to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the 1st defendant did not get any valid title under Ex.B.1 sale deed. Moreover, it is for the buyer to take all precautions prior to purchase of the property i.e. he has to enquire about the title of his vendor and he has to obtain encumbrance certificate. But the 1st defendant remain silent. It is relevant to say that the son of the plaintiffs purchased total plot No.454 i.e. total „A‟ schedule property from the original owner i.e. Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner on 22.04.2003. 2 AIR 2002 Supreme Court 959 26. Learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance on Ram Khilona and others v. Sardar and others3, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 12, at pp. 552-53, para 1378 it is observed: “A material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed. The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed.” In para 1383, at p. 555 it is observed: “An alteration made in a deed, after its execution, in some particular which is not material does not in any way affect the validity of the deed; and this is equally the case whether the alteration was made by a stranger or by a party to the deed. Thus the date of a deed may well be filled in after execution; for a deed takes effect from the date of execution, and is quite good though it is undated. So, also, the names of the occupiers of land conveyed may be inserted in a deed after its execution, where the property assured was sufficiently ascertained without them. It appears that an alteration is not material which does not vary the legal effect of the deed in its original state, but merely expresses that which was implied by law in the deed as originally written, or which carries out the intention of the parties already apparent on the face of the deed, provided that the alteration does not otherwise prejudice the party liable under it.” In the case at hand, the interlineation in Ex.B.1 is a material interlineation and correction of plot number is visible with a naked eye on seeing the document itself. In the document, in plot No.454, after „45‟, the digit „4‟ was inserted with pen by erasing another number. It is also certified on the bottom of that page of Ex.B.1 document as “number of corrections are Nil”. Furthermore, Ex.B.3 itself reveals that 3rd defendant alleged to have been alienated remaining half portion in plot No.454 to the son of the 4th 3 (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 375 defendant i.e. 5th defendant on 04.09.2010 and during pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his father i.e. 4th defendant, which itself shows that to cover up the aforesaid latches only, the subsequent documents Exs.B.3 and B.4 are brought into existence by the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance on Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) through Legal Representatives and another v. Shivnath and others4. In the case at hand, the plaintiffs discharged their burden by producing voluminous documentary evidence. Furthermore, the defendants 3 and 4 denied about the laying of plots with defendant No.2 and also started real estate business with defendant No.2 in the written statement itself. But they supported the pleadings put forth by the plaintiffs in the plaint in their evidence as D.W.1 and D.W.3. 28. Learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance on Jahidul Islam and another v. On the death of Abu Shama His Legal Heirs, Jabeda Begum (Wife) and others5, wherein the Gauhati High Court held as follows: “15. The next question arises as regards the applicability of section 48 of the said Act which gives priority in respect to the transfer made at various stages in respect to the same property, but the said provision is only applicable when a person creates right by transfer at different times in or over the same immovable property. However, in the instant case that the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiffs was done by the pro forma-respondent Nos. 6 and 7, whereas the deed of sale executed in favour of the defendant No. 5 was executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Under such circumstances, the question of applying section 48 to the facts and circumstances of the instant case does not arise…...” In the case at hand, it is the admitted case of the defendants 3 and 4 as per their own statements in their evidence that they started business with 2nd 4 (2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82 5 (2022) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 78 defendant in the name of Vasudha Real Estate and the office was also started by all the defendants 2 to 4 and jointly laid plots. It is evident that the 2nd defendant as a Managing Partner of Vasudha Real Estate, alienated total plot No.454 to the son of the plaintiffs in the year 2003 itself, who died subsequently in the year 2013 intestate as unmarried by leaving the plaintiffs i.e. the parents and the plaintiffs succeeded the plaint schedule property by way of natural succession. Whereas, the 1st defendant‟s sale deed is dated 04.11.2004 and there is a gap of more than 18 months in between Ex.A.8 and Ex.B.1. Whereas, the plaintiffs‟ sale deed is earlier sale deed. The 1st defendant‟s document is latter document. Furthermore, it is evident that the plot No.453 was alienated by the 2nd defendant in the name of Vasudha Real Estate, represented by Managing Partner and defendants 3 and 4 alienated plot Nos.455 and 456 jointly, but the 1st defendant obtained sale deed from 4th defendant which contains material alteration and interlineation. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs itself supports the same. It was admitted by D.W.3 that the plots allotted by him and 4th defendant, were sold together to the third parties. Therefore, the 1st defendant will not get any valid title under Ex.B.1. As stated supra, in the Ex.B.1 document itself, in plot No.454, after „45‟, number „4‟ was inserted with pen by erasing another number and it is also certified on the bottom of that page of Ex.B.1 that “number of corrections are nil”. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that except examining the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1, no other independent witness is produced by the plaintiffs. It is well settled that the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs in the plaint itself that all the three defendants i.e. defendants 2 to 4 laid a venture in the entire extent of land Ac.7.40 cents and sell the plots individually and accordingly, all the three defendants i.e. defendants 2 to 4 laid the said plots and the 2nd defendant sold away the plots in his land in the name of the firm Vasudha Real Estate and defendants 3 and 4 sold away the plots fell in their land jointly in their individual names. Though the defendants 3 and 4 denied about laying of venture along with the 2nd defendant, they admitted in their evidence about laying of venture and laying plots in the entire extent of Ac.7.40 cents and also opening of office in the name of Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner i.e. 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs‟ sale deed is dated 22.04.2003, which is a registered document and the plaintiffs filed original registered document. Whereas, the 1st defendant‟s dale deed is dated 04.11.2004. As stated supra, there is a material alteration, interlineation which is not certified on the bottom page of Ex.B.1 and it was shown as corrections are nil. The 1st defendant for the reasons best known to her, did not choose to file original registered sale deed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs obtained a registered sale deed from the original owner Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner i.e. 2nd defendant. It is also evident that plot No.453 was sold to one Syed Riyaz Hussain under original of Ex.A.3 by Vasudha Real Estate, represented by its Managing Partner i.e. 2nd defendant. Whereas, plot Nos.455 and 456 were jointly sold by defendants 3 and 4 to the third parties. It is also evident to overcome the latches in the year 2010 i.e. on 04.09.2010, the 3rd defendant alienated the remaining half of plot No.454 in favour of son of the 4th defendant i.e. 5th defendant and during pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his father. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is a clear collusion in between the partners i.e. defendants 3 and 4 and 1st defendant has not obtained any valid sale deed from her vendor. The evidence of P.W.1 is wholly reliable, which is well supported by the admissions of defendants 3 and 4. 30. As stated supra, there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been proved by Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In fact, it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence, which is required to be judged by the Court, to place reliance in statement of 1st plaintiff i.e. in the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is well supported by the admissions of D.W.1 and D.W.3 i.e. 3rd defendant and 4th defendant. The evidence let in by the defendants in support of their case probablise the case set up by the plaintiffs, such evidence cannot be ignored. The plaintiffs produced voluminous of documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.11. In addition to the oral evidence of P.W.1, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs is well supported the case of the plaintiffs. The defendants 3 and 4 having admitted layout was laid by them along with 2nd defendant in the entire extent of Ac.7.40 cents, intentionally they did not state anything with regard to plot No.454 of the plaintiffs. They suppressed the real facts in the written statement itself. 31. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that Ex.A.8 cannot be believed without any evidence by examining the persons having knowledge about the sale deed. Ex.A.8 is a registered sale deed. The vendee under the document is none other than the son of the plaintiffs. He died prior to filing of the suit. His vendor is shown as 2nd defendant. He remained set ex parte in the present suit and he is not disputing the execution of original sale deed under Ex.A.8. Furthermore, as per the own case of the 3rd defendant, the 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner of Vasudha Real Estate and he started business with 2nd defendant and 4th defendant and they opened office in the name and style of Vasudha Real Estate and laid plots in entire extent of Ac.7.40 cents and the 2nd defendant executed the sale deed as a Managing Partner of Vasudha Real Estate. Therefore, non-examination of the 2nd defendant in the suit proceedings, is not a fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. 32. In a case of Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows: 6 (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713 “7. A bare look at Section 100 CPC shows that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the 1976 amendment is confined only to such appeals as involve a substantial question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court. Of course, the proviso to the section shows that nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if the court is satisfied that the case involves such a question. The proviso presupposes that the court shall indicate in its order the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a “substantial question of law” is thus, the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 CPC. 8. Generally speaking, an appellant is not to be allowed to set up a new case in second appeal or raise a new issue (otherwise than a jurisdictional one), not supported by the pleadings or evidence on the record and unless the appeal involves a substantial question of law, a second appeal shall not lie to the High Court under the amended provisions……” The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of Courts below, but it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where :- (1) The Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (2) The Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law wrongfully; or (3) The Courts have wrongfully cast the burden of proof. The present case at hand has not come within the ambit of aforesaid exceptions. 33. In the light of the material on record and upon earnest consideration, now, it is manifest that the substantial question of law raised in the present second appeal on behalf of the appellants did not arise or remain for consideration, this Court is satisfied that this case did not involve any substantial questions of law for determination. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both the Courts below decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below and the present second appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law and therefore, the second appeal on behalf of the appellants did not arise or remain for consideration. 34. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgments and decrees of trial Court as well as first appellate Court. 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. //TRUE COPY// VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J To, 1. INDURU VENKATESWARULU, S/O.I.VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5-10-5, GIRIDI STREET, L.A.R.SAGARAM, NIAUDPETA VILLAGE AND MANDALAM, SPSRNELLORE DISTIICT. 2. INDUM LAKSHMAMMA, W/O.I.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCIHOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.5-10-5, GIRIDI STIEET, L.A.R.SAGARAM, NIAUDPETA VILLAGE AND MANDALAM, SPSRNELLORE DISTRICT. 3. YANAMALA BAYYAPA REDDY, S/O VENKU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. VASUDHA REAL ESTATES, BRAHMANANDAPURAM, NELLORE. 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:11/09/2025 ORDER SA 176/2024