\ APHC010105242020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.153 of 2020 Between: 1. Dadi Thata Rao, (Died) 2. Dadi Polamma, W/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 63 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalcm, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 3. Dadi Prasada Rao, S/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 49 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 4. Dadi Venkata Rameswara Rao, S/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 5. Dadi Nookaraju, (Died) 6. Dadi Chandra Sekhara Rao, (Died per LRs) 7. Sadaram Kumari, W/o. Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, R/o.Main Road, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. 8. Doddi Sobha Rani, W/o. late Venkata Rao, House Wife, aged 39 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 9. Dadi Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 41 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 10. Kandregula Hema Nukambika, W/o. Raju Kiran, D/o. Dadi Nookaraju Hindu, aged 22 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/ 1, Kothapalem, Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 11. Dadi Rajarajeswari, D/o. late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 20 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1 Visakhapatnam. Hamlet of Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram .. .APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT 12. Dadi Sujatha, W/o late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 13. Dadi Swathi Sree, D/o. late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 27 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 14. Dadi Bindu Susmitha, D/o late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 23 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 15. Dadi Jaya Chandra, S/o. late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 20 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (As per the Court order date 26-02-2024, Appellants No. 12 to 15 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Appellant No.6, vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 in S.A.No.153 of 2020) ...APPELLANTS AND 1. Bendapudi Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o late Pera Raju, Hindu, aged 60 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 2. Bendapudi Srinivas, S/o. B.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged 34 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 3. Bendapudi Pera Raju, S/o. B.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, R/o. U.K. Represented by his G.P.A. Holder, Bendapudi Mallikarjuna Rao (first respondent herein). 4. Madhigonda Ratnamala, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 5. Boddepalli Ananda Rao, S/o Sri Appala Ramu, Hindu, Aged about 64 years, Occ; Business, R/o D.No.2-216, Venkatapuram, Ibrahimbag - 532410, Srikakulam District. 6. Behara Maruthi, S/o Sri Ravi, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.32-6-73 Natayyapalem - 530012, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7. Malia Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Sri Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-72, Aripaka- 531035, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8. Bonigi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Tholapi, SM Puram, Ponduru-532402, Srikakulam District. 9. Nambala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Chandrayya, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No. 4-110/1, Durga Nagar Colony, Peda Narava - 530027, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 10. Malla Chinnari, W/o Sri MRK Bangaru Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No. 103/3, Kotanagara - 530027, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11. Doddi Rama Krishna, S/o Sri Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No. 1-142, Saragadam Street, Kothapalem Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 530027. 12. Govada Kiran Kumar, S/o Sri Subba Raju, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.50-52-9/2, SF-7 Srinivasa Apartments, NE Layout, Krishna Mandir, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530013. 13. Vedula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged About 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.58-2-46, Syam Nagar Colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530018. 14. Malla Rama Kasi Bangaru Naidu, S/o Late Sri Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.1-103/3, Kotanarava, Via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 530027. (as per the Court Order dated 10.04.2023, Respondents No.5 to 14 are impleaded vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 in S.A.No.153 of 2020) Gopisetti Subba Rao, S/o (Late) Peda Suryanarayana, Aged about 51 years, D.No.59-53-9/6, Balaji Hills, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara , Visakhapatnam-530013. (Respondent No. 15 is impleaded, vide lA No. 3 of 2023, as per the Court Order dated 16-10-2024) 15. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 19-01-2018 passed in A.S. No. 151 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 02.06.2010 in O.S.No.491 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.H.Akbar, Advocate for the Appellant Nos.1 to 11, Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, Advocate for the Appellant Nos. 12 to 15, Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 14 and of Dr.Ananth S, Advocate for Respondent No. 15.. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and 2. That the each party be and hereby are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Sd/-K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (FTC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Two CD Copies. / HIGH COURT TK DATED:09/07/2025 DECREE SA No.153of 2020 g( t 9 JUL 2025 rrentSectioiv^ ★ m Co K.b DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL / APHC010105242020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.153 of 2020 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 19-01-2018 passed in A.S. No.151 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 02.06.2010 in O.S.No.491 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: 1. Dadi Thata Rao, (Died) Dadi Polamma, W/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 63 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalcm, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. Dadi Prasada Rao, S/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 49 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. Dadi Venkata Rameswara Rao, S/o. late Dadi Thata Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. Dadi Nookaraju, (Died) Dadi Chandra Sekhara Rao, (Died per LRs) Sadaram Kumari, W/o. Eswara Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, R/o.Main Road, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1 8. Doddi Sobha Rani, W/o. late Venkata Rao, House Wife, aged 39 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 9. Dadi Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 41 years, Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Visakhapatnam. 10. Kandregula Hema Nukambika, W/o. Raju Kiran, D/o. Dadi Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 22 years, R/o.D.No.3-20/ 1, Kothapalem, Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam. 11. Dadi Rajarajeswari, D/o. late Nookaraju, Hindu, aged 20 years R/o.D.No.3-20/1, Visakhapatnam. Hamlet of Kothapalem, Hamlet of Venkatapuram, ...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT 12. Dadi Sujatha, W/o late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 13. Dadi Swathi Sree, D/o. late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 27 years, R/o. 2-27, Visakhapatnam District. 14. Dadi Bindu Susmitha, D/o late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 23 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 15. Dadi Jaya Chandra, S/o. late Dadi Chandrasekhara Rao, Aged about 20 years, R/o. 2-27, Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (As per the Court order date 26-02-2024, Appellants No. 12 to 15 brought on record as LRs of the deceased Appellant No.6, vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 in S.A.No.153 of 2020) Venkatapuram, Gopalapatnam Mandal, are ...APPELLANTS AND Bendapudi Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o late Pera Raju, Hindu, aged 60 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. Bendapudi Srinivas, S/o. B.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged 34 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. Bendapudi Pera Raju, S/o. B.Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, R/o. U.K. Represented by his G.P.A. Holder, Bendapudi Mallikarjuna Rao (first respondent herein). Madhigonda Ratnamala, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/o.Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 5. Boddepalli Ananda Rao, S/o Sri Appala Ramu, Hindu, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.2-216, Venkatapuram, Ibrahimbag - 532410, Srikakulam District. 6. Behara Maruthi, S/o Sri Ravi, Hindu, Aged about 44 years, Occ; Business, R/o D.No.32-6-73 Natayyapalem - 530012, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7. Malla Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Sri Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-72, Aripaka- 531035, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8. Bonigi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Simhachalam, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o Tholapi, SM Puram, Ponduru-532402, Srikakulam District. 9. Nambala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Chandrayya, Hindu, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No. 4-110/1, Durga Nagar Colony, Peda Narava - 530027, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 10. Malla Chinnari, W/o Sri MRK Bangaru Naidu, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o D.No.103/3, Kotanagara - 530027, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11. Doddi Rama Krishna, S/o Sri Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.1-142, Saragadam Street, Kothapalem Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 530027. 12. Govada Kiran Kumar, S/o Sri Subba Raju, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.50-52-9/2, SF-7 Srinivasa Apartments, NE Layout, Krishna Mandir, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530013. 13. Vedula Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sri Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged About 37 years, Occ; Business, R/o D.No.58-2-46, Syam Nagar Colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530018. 14. Malla Rama Kasi Bangaru Naidu, S/o Late Sri Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.1-103/3, Kotanarava, Via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam - 530027. (as per the Court Order dated 10.04.2023, Respondents No.5 to 14 are impleaded vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 in S.A.No.153 of 2020) 15. Gopisetti Subba Rao, S/o (Late) Peda Suryanarayana, Aged about 51 years, D.No.59-53-9/6, Balaji Hills, B.S. Layout, Seethammadhara , Visakhapatnam-530013. (Respondent No. 15 is impleaded, vide lA No. 3 of 2023, as per the Court Order dated 16-10-2024) ...RESPONDENTS lA No: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further execution Proceedings in O.S. No.491 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.) at Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the Second Appeal. Counsel for Petitioner Nos.1 to 11 : SRI N.H.AKBAR Counsel for Petitioner Nos.12 to 15: SRI KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 14: SRI N. SIVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.15 The Court made the following order: : Dr.ANANTH S HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.153 of 2020 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 19.01.2018 in A.S.No.151 of 2010, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 02.06.2010 in O.S.No.491 of 2003, on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam ( Trial Court for short). 2. The 1®‘ appellant herein is the sole defendant and respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.491 of 2003. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the 1"'appellant died and the appellant Nos.2 to 8 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 1""^ appellant, thereafter, the appellant died and the appellant Nos.9 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 5“^ appellant. Further during the pendency of the second appeal, the 6'*^ appellant died and the appellant Nos. 12 to 15 were brought on record as legal representatives of the 6*'' appellant. Whereas, the respondent Nos.5 to 14 and 15'^ respondent were impleaded as per the orders of this Court, dated 10.04.2023 and 16.10.2024 respectively. 3.The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.491 of 2003 with a prayer for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs in any way and for costs of the suit. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.151 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. ever 2 VGKR, J. sa_153_2020 Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful legal representatives of the deceased defendant 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 i O.S.No.491 of 2003, is as follows; sole in the plaint averments in The father of the 1plaintiff one B. Pera Raju acquired land to Of Ac.33-00 cents in said property was devolved Sarabhalingam. Out of the an extent Narava Village, long time back and after his demise, the upon the 1“ plaintiff and his brother late Dr. said extent Ac.33-00 cents, acquired by the Governnnent. Later, during the lifetime land to an extent of Ac. 17-70 some land was of Dr. Sarabhalingam cents was sold to the defendant and his nominees under nine different sale deeds dated 12.12.1984. After selling the an extent of Ac.5-87 cents said property, still there is remained in the possession of the 1=" plaintiff and the said Sarabhalingam. The 4»’ plaintiff is the only surviving member in the family of the said Sarabhalingam Government under A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act issued title deeds and pattadar passbooks in favour of the 1^' plaintiff and the 4 plaintiff to an extent of Ac.2-93 14 a single bit. The land that brother is situated adjacent 19.05.2003 when the defendant The cents each and the entire schedule property was sold by the 1=' plaintiff and his deceased IS to the schedule land and subsequent to made an effort to apprehend that the defendant will continue his attempts for dispossessing the plaintiffs from the are constrained to file the suit. suit schedule property and that the plaintiffs 7. The defendant filed written statement before the averments in the plaint. The brief follows: the trial Court by denying averments in the written statement are as r ^ VGKR, J. sa 153 2020 The suit is not maintainable either under law or on facts for the very that the plaintiffs without having possession, filed the present-suit for the relief of permanent injunction. In fact, the defendant has been in peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property right from 1983. The reason possession plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean hands with all false and fictitious allegations suppressing the material facts. The 1 plaintiff and his brother Dr. Sarabhalingam had executed an agreement of sale on 12.08.1978 in favour of the defendant for an extent of Ac.26-00 cents after alienating Ac.O- 38 cents, in which they have constructed a cementary of the deceased son of Dr. Sarabhalingam at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre and later the performance of the contractual obligations of the said contract of sale have been extended till the year 1981 as the measurements of the land could not be taken up. plaintiff and his brother executed nine different sale deeds Ultimately, the 1 for a total extent of Ac. 17-70 cents of land and the 1®‘ plaintiff and his'brother did not turn up to execute the registered sale deeds in respect of remaining portion of the land. The defendant has been continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property right from 1983, the plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities, managed them and secured pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The plaintiffs never been in possession of the schedule property and that there is no such property on ground even otherwise except Ac.2-65 cents. Subsequently, after enquiry, the revenue authorities recommended for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 4 and in view of the said fact, the very suit becomes infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed even on that count also and that there is no cause of action for the present suit and the same is invented for the purpose of filing the present suit. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues for trial; (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for? (2) To what relief? VGKR, J. sa_153_2020 9^ During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs P.W.l and P,W.2 were examined and Exs.A.t to A. 10 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 marked. were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.75 were 10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion arguments of both sides and evidence on record, decreed the suit defendant filed the appeal suit In A,S,No.151 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court wherein the following points came up for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiffs had been i schedule property as pleaded by them? of trial, on hearing the on consideration of oral and documentary Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful in possession of the plaint 2) Whether the plaintiffs had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant and allowed the defendant possession and enjoyment of the to be in same as pleaded by the defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiffs injunction as prayed for? are entitled for grant of permanent 4) Whether the decree and judgment of Trial Court is perverse, erroneous and the same is required to be interfered by this Court? 5) To what relief? 1-1. The learned First Appellate Judge answered the points, after hearing the arguments as above, against the defendant and dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Felt aggrieved of representatives of the deceased sole defendant the same, the legal in O.S.No.491 of 2003 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 5 VGKR, J. sa_153 2020 12. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the appeal on 09.08.2021, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court properly applied Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, in the circumstances of the case? (2) Whether appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below is proper and if the findings recorded therein suffer from perversity? 13. Heard Sri J. Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the appellant Nos. 12 to 15 and heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondentNos.5 to 14 and Sri Ananth S., learned counsel for the 15*'^ respondent. None appeared for the other appellants and other respondents. ■ 14. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First AppellateCourt which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. in a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh\ the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” ^AIR 1993 SC 398 VGKR, J, sa_153 2020 In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam . Apex Court held as follows: vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar^ the 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 inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. or was based upon 15. In a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code Procedure, this Court is normally not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record. It shall not reverse the findings of both the Courts below under few situations. If it is found that the material and relevant evidence not considered by the First Appellate Court and if considered it would have lead to an opposite conclusion, is one instance where this Court is entitled to interfere. The other situation is when the findings of the facts were arrived by the First Appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if it was omitted, an appropriate conclusion was possible. It is on such occasions also this Court can interfere. It is also relevant to say that if the judgment of both the Courts below of Civil except are are contrary to mandatory provisions of the law applicable to the case, then also an interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible. 16. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that father of the 1^‘ plaintiff acquired land to an extent of Ac.33-00 cents at Narava Village, long time back and after his demise, the said property was devolved upon the 1®‘ plaintiff and his elder brother Dr. Sarabhalingam. The plaintiffs further pleaded that out of total Ac.33-00 cents of land, some land was acquired by the Government, later during the lifetime of Dr. Sarabhalingam, a land to an extent of Ac. 17-70 cents was sold to the defendant and his nominees under nine different sale deeds, ^AIR 1999 SC 4.n VGKR, J. sa_153_2020 dated 12.12.1984 and after alienation of the same property still there is an extent of Ac.5-87 cents remained in the possession of the 1"' plaintiff and Dr. Sarabhalingam and the 4*^ plaintiff is only a surviving member in the family of Dr. Sarabhalingam. The plaintiffs asserted in the plaint itself that the Government issued a pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Ac.2-93 72 cents each in favour of the 1"‘ plaintiff and 4*^ plaintiff and they possession and enjoyment of the same. It is not in dispute by either side that originally the plaint schedule properly belongs to the 1 plaintiff. It is admitted fact by the defendant that abetting to the said land, at eastern side, the plaintiffs sold land to the defendant under Ex.B.8. 17. The specific case of the defendant is that the 1^' plaintiff and his brother Dr. Sarabhalingam had executed an agreement of sale on 12.08.1978 in favour of the defendant for Ac.26-00 cents of land and later the performance of the contractual obligations of the said contract of sale have been extended till the year 1981, as the measurements of the land could not be taken ultimately, the 1®* plaintiff and his brother executed nine different sale deeds for total extent of Ac. 17-70 cents and the plaintiff and his brother did not turn up to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the remaining portions of the sale deeds and the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. But, in order to prove the possession in the plaint schedule property, the defendant did not file documentary proof to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit or prior to the date of suit. P.W.1 admitted about the execution of agreement of sale under Ex.B.1 but the plaintiffs denied the alleged possession of the defendant in the plaint schedule property. It is undisputed fact that no suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and there is no endorsement on Ex.B.1 even 1981 or subsequent thereon for extension of time. The defendant admitted in his evidence in cross examination itself he paid sale consideration in respect of Ac. 17-70 cents are in plaintiff and 4 up any VGKR, J. sa_153 2020 covered under Ex.B.8 to Ex.B.15 sale deeds and from 1984 onwards he did not tender to pay any balance sale consideration in respect of the remaining land. Legally, an agreement of sale may not be regarded as a transaction of a sale or a document transferring the proprietary rights in an immovable property. 18. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the appellant/defendant to pay the remaining balance sale consideration or he did not choose to file any suit for specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.B.1. It is well settled that the sale of immovable property can be made only by way of registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge over the subject matter of the property. It is also well settled that agreement of sale does not create any interest of the proposed vendee in the suit schedule property. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the title in immovable property valued at more than one hundred rupees can be conveyed only by executing registered sale deed. Section 54 of the Act specifically provides that a contract for the sale of immoveable property contract evidencing the fact that a sale of such property shall take place terms settled between the parties, but it does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. It is also not in dispute that the suit lands sought to be conveyed is of value of more than one hundred rupees, therefore, unless there was a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant/defendant, the title of the suit land continued to vest with the plaintiffs only and remain in the ownership of the plaintiffs. It is obvious that an agreement of sale create no interest in the land. Therefore, unless, there was a registered document of sale in favour of the defendant, the title of the land would not get divested from the vendor. In the case on hand, admittedly no title was conveyed to the appellant/defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. No doubt suit for perpetual injunction, there is no need to discuss the title of the parties, but here the defendant relied on Ex.B.1 agreement of sale said to have been executed a way back in the year 1978 and he has not taken any steps to pay was a on , in a VGKR, J. sa_153_2020 the remaining balance of sale consideration or he has not filed any suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. However, no scrap of paper is filed by the appellant/ defendant to show his possession in the plaint schedule property. 19. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16 are no way helpful to the appellant to prove the possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.5 shows the pattadar passbooks and title deeds are issued in the name of 1®* plaintiff and 4*^ plaintiff in respect of extent of plaint schedule property. Ex.A. 1- certified copy of 10(1) Adangal shows that the names of the plaintiffs 1 and 4 are entered in revenue records to show their possession in the plaint schedule property. Ex.A.7 goes to show that the appeal preferred by the defendant against issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in the name of plaintiffs 1 and 4 was dismissed. There is no legal evidence on record to show that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiffs proved by way of oral and documentary evidence to show about their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. 20. It is not in dispute by the defendant that the plaintiffs 1 and 4 original owners of plaint schedule property, but, the case of the appellant/ defendant is that he obtained Ex.B.1 an unregistered agreement of sale a way back in the year 1978 i.e., on 12.08.1978. As stated supra, no suit has been filed by the defendant for seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and there is no endorsement on Ex.B.1 agreement even in the year 1981 or subsequent thereon for extension of time. As per the own admissions of the defendant, he paid sale consideration in respect of sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs 1 and 4 under Ex.B.8 to Ex.B.15 and from 1984 onwards he did not tender to pay any balance sale consideration in respect of remaining land or he has not filed any suit for specific performance of agreement of sale to enforce his right in Ex.B.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs having titje in the plaint schedule property. Possession follows title. are are ( 10 VGKR, Jj sa_153_202C| 21. It is possession of a the defendant, a settled law that where property and if such a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession is interfered or threatened by a suit for injunction simplicotor the plaintiffs is a lawful possession will lie. Here, the possession of and the plaintiffs have irght to protect their any person, who does not possession against r prohibitory injunction. It i prove a better title for seeking 's also equally well settled that a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against rightful owner. 22. On Judge granted appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial and on a relief of perpetual ini injunction in favour of the plaintiffs re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Judge also confirmed the Court while the learned First Appellate said finding given by the learned Trial Judge. This exercising jurisdiction Procedure must confine under Section 100 of the Code of Civil question of law involved in the to the substantial ap.oea! and this Court cannot re-appreciate the concurrent findings of both the Courts : exercised the discretion judiciously. Further, question of law is a s/ne qua non for the This Court evidence and interfere with the below, where the Courts below have the existence of a substantial exercise of jurisdiction by this Court «• «"»• .h. manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence Courts below Therefore, I on record. am of the considered view that on evidence on record only, both The above said finding i evidence led by the parties. appreciation of the entire the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding, remain unimpeachable from the in my considered view. It cannot be said that the same are in any manner perverse or based statute. Therefore, there appeal is liable to be dismissed. on incorrect reading, application or interpretation of the are no merits in the second appeal and the second 24. In the result, the and circumstances of the second appeal. second appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts case, each party do bear their own costs in the 11 VGKR, J, sa_153 2020 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/-K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// IV 14 SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IV Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. (With Record) The IV Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) (FTC), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. (With Record) One CC to Sri NH Akbar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, Advocate [OPUC One CC to Sri N. Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Dr.Ananth.S, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPC] Two CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TK HIGH COURT TK DATED:09/07/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA No.153of2020 a 1 9 JUL 2025 i * ^tfurrent SectioB^^^ Co DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL