APHC010530652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 752/2025 Between: 1. MEDURI NARASIMHACHARYULU, S/O PARDHASARADHI ACHARYULU, AGED 85 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-128, AREMANDA POST, PONNURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. YELLAVULA SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O CHINA VENKAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O D.NO.15-06-49 2ND LINE, REDLA BAZAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. MANIKYALA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O RAMAIAH AGED 61 YEARS, R/O KAZA VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. ROMPICHARLA VASANTHA KUMARI, W/O LATE KRISHNAMACHARYULU, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-70, KAZA VILLAGE MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. ROMPICHARLA SATYA PRASAD, S/O LATE KRISHNAMACHARYULU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-70, KAZA VILLAGE MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. ROMPICHARLA SESHU KUMAR, S/O LATE KRISHNAMACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-70, KAZA VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. SREEBHASHYAM PANKAJA VALLI, W/O KARUNAKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-2, BHAGAVANTHULAVARI STREET, 2 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 MANGALAGIRI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section ___________ against orderspleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25-06-2025 passed in A.S.No. 108 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge Guntur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23-02-2018 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri consequently dismiss the said suit OS,No.129 of 2014, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 23-02-2018 in O.S.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, as confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 25-06- 2025 in A.S.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the present Second Appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH 3 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present Second Appeal arises against the order in Judgment of the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 25.06.2025, in A.S.No.108 of 2018. The aforesaid appeal had been filed by the defendants, in O.S.No.129 of 2014 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 23.02.2018. 3. The parties to the appeal are described as per their array in the suit. 4. The Appellate Court had set out the details of the property under dispute in Paragraph No.1 of the said Judgment, which is extracted herein below: i) 1st plaintiff is mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4. One Rompicharla Krishnamacharyulu is the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and husband of the 1st plaintiff. The said Krishnamacharyulu acquired/purchased the plaint schedule site i.e., ABCD and it’s southern side property i.e., DCHIFEJG shown in the plaint plan. He acquired an extent of 87 Square Yards shown as JIFE as per plaint plan from one Meduri Rama Krishnamacharyulu through registered exchange deed dated 06.07.1950 (Ex.A2). Thereafter, he 4 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 purchased an extent of 80 Square Yards shown as GHIJ as per plaint plan on 25.01.1960 in public auction conducted by Munsif Court, Guntur and obtained sale certificate and delivery of possession on 05.10.1960 vide Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. Thereafter, the said Krishnamacharyulu purchased 210 Square Yards shown as ABCHGD including plaint schedule site shown as ABCD in public auction conducted by Munsif Court, Guntur on 14.11.1966 and obtained sale certificate and got delivered the possession of said property vide Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. Since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of said properties with absolute rights till his demise on 28.12.1992. He mortgaged his entire property including the plaint schedule property to AP Khadi and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad on 26.04.1992 by executing registered security bond under Ex.A8. During his life time, he constructed two storied RCC building in his southern side property i.e., DCHIFEJG building property includes 97 Square Yards in the said 210 Square Yards purchased by said Krishnamacharyulu on 22.12.1996 in Court auction and it’s southern side site 167 Square Yards (80+87) as shown in the plaint plan. The said Krishnamacharyulu was Priest of Kodanda Ramalayam situated opposite to plaint schedule site. He used the plaint schedule site for raising flowers for using the same in Ramalayam and also used the said site to keep manure heap and waste material. 5. As far as the facts of the case are concerned, the plaintiffs contended that one Sri Krishnamacharyulu passed away on 28.12.1992 and the plaintiffs had become the owners of the said property, which remained 5 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 under their possession. The plaintiffs approached the Trial Court on the ground that the defendants sought to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said property in June, 2014. 6. The defendants filed their defense contending that the property belonged to their ancestors and the sale of the said property to Sri Krishnamacharyulu was not appropriate inasmuch as the property had been purchased by Sri Krishnamacharyulu in Execution proceedings conducted by Small Causes Court. 7. The Trial Court, after conducting trial, held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property and that the title of the plaintiffs was cleared on account of the execution proceedings and the possession certificate issued in the course of these proceedings. The Trial Court also took into account the fact that Sri Krishnamacharyulu, who is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the remaining plaintiffs, had mortgaged this property, in the year 1972 to the A.P. Khadi and Village Board. 8. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the said land and being aggrieved by the Decree of the Trial Court, setting aside the deeds of sale executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 & 3, the said defendants had filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. 6 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 9. In the appeal, the primary contention of the appellants has been that the ownership of the plaintiffs, over the said property, which was purchased by Sri Krishnamacharyulu, in the auction proceeding, conducted in the execution petition, filed before the Small Causes Court, was not valid and consequently, no title conveyed to the plaintiffs. The further contention was that the defendants were in possession of the land and it was the plaintiffs, who were seeking to interfere with their possession. 10. The Appellate Court, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court, while dealing with the question of possession had held that there was a clear admission, by defendant No.3, that the plaintiffs were in possession and it was the defendants, who were trying to enter into the land of the plaintiffs. Further, the Appellate Court also took into account the documents produced by the plaintiffs to show that they had been paying sist and taxes in relation to the structures raised by them in their disputed land. The Appellate Court also took into account the fact that the defendants were unable to produce any such documents to demonstrate their possession over the property. 11. As far as the question of transfer of title to the plaintiffs, under the execution proceedings of the Small Causes Court is concerned, the Appellate Court held that the defendants had not taken any steps to get the said proceedings declared as null and void. The Appellate Court held that in such circumstances, the said issue would not be relevant. 7 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 12. Aggrieved by these findings of the Trial Court and the affirmation of the order of the Appellate Court, the appellants have now filed the present Second Appeal. 13. Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court had gone into the question of impact of Order XXI Rule 82 of C.P.C., on the sale of the property by the Small Causes Court. He would submit that both the Courts had committed a grievous error in ignoring the effect of Order XXI Rule 82 of C.P.C. The learned counsel relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Singh and another vs. Ram Lochan and Others1. In this Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the effect of Order XXI Rule 82 and on the question of whether any other Court, to which the decree of the Small Causes Court is concerned, can conduct sale of the immovable property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of C.P.C, had held that the Small Causes Court cannot sell immovable property, by way of execution and that even other Courts, to which the decree from the Small Causes Court is transferred, cannot sell immovable property in execution of such decree. 14. The question that would arise before this Court is whether the plaintiffs can continue to claim ownership over the said land. Though the sale of the property by the Small Causes Court, would in the normal course, have 1 AIR 1981 SC 416 8 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 to be set aside, no proceeding of any nature were initiated by the plaintiffs for this purpose. It may be noted that the purchase of the property of Sri Krishnamacharyulu, under the proceedings of the Small Causes Court, was in the year 1966. It may also be noted that Sri Krishnamacharyulu had mortgaged the entire property in the year 1972 to the A.P. Khadi and Village Board. This assertion of title from 1972 had not been objected by the defendants till 2014, when defendant No.1 ostensibly sold the land to defendant Nos.2 & 3, by way of a registered deed of sale. 15. As pointed by the Appellate Court, the effect of the purchase of the property, in the execution proceedings, conducted by the Small Causes Court, would have to be gone into, where the defendants had sought specific directions and declaration as was done in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Prasad Singh (supra). 16. In the present case, even if the said transaction is treated as null and void, the fact remains that Sri Krishnamacharyulu asserted his title over the property by virtue of the mortgage of the land in the year 1972. Thereafter, Sri Krishnamacharyulu and subsequent plaintiffs asserted title and possession over the land, which was not disturbed by the defendants till 2014. In such circumstances, even if the purchase of Sri Krishnamacharyulu is treated to be void, the principle of adverse possession would definitely arise and the defendants having failed to take necessary steps for recovery of possession, within the period stipulated under the Limitation Act, cannot now assert title 9 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 over the said land and claim ownership over the land. It is now settled law that the principle of adverse possession is not merely a matter of assertion, but it is also a sword where title can be asserted by the person in adverse possession once the period of limitation expires. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any questions of law that arise or require to be answered in the present case and accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 30.01.2026 MJA 10 RRR, J S.A.No.752 of 2025 195 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 752/2025 30.01.2026 MJA