1 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 APHC011364752016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 550/2023 Between: Ghanasala Pullamma, and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Kaluva Sudhakara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 550 OF 2023 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 23-06-2016 in A.S.No. 10 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur (for short, 'the appellate Court'), confirming the decree and judgment dated 18-07-2012 in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos. 1 to 3, respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein are defendant Nos. 4 to 11 in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over plaint schedule property and also not to alienate or execute any document in respect of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit without costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property and also directed the defendants not to alienate or execute any kind of document in respect of plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved of the same, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 1 to 3-the appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal. 3 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 16 of 2010, is as follows: The plaint schedule property is situated in Edara Village of Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasam District. Originally, plaint schedule property is the absolute property of grandfather of the plaintiff by name Kaluva Lathhan @ Lathha and his name was also mutated in revenue records. About 40 years back, grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate. On the death of the said Lathhan, his son Ramaiah, who is father of the plaintiff, succeeded plaint schedule property in succession as his legal-heir. Since then, the father of the plaintiff was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till his death. Subsequently, about 20 years back, the father of the plaintiff died intestate. On the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, his brother Prabhakar Rao and their mother Ademma succeeded the same in succession. Subsequently, they orally partitioned all the properties of the deceased Ramaiah and in the said oral partition, plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants. The name of the plaintiff is also entered in revenue records. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers and defendant No. 1 is their mother and all are members of a joint family. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over plaint schedule property. Due to escalation of prices of lands, the defendants are seriously trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property. They are also openly threatening the plaintiff that they would enter into plaint schedule property and therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 4 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint averments and further contended as follows: Kaluva Lathhan @ Lathha is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he sold the same in favour of father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by name Ghanasala Venkaiah under a stamped agreement of sale dated 12-10-1953 for valuable consideration and put him in possession. Having obtained the document and possession over plaint schedule property, the father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 enjoyed the same with his own rights to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff and his father. Subsequently, after the death of Ghanasala Venkaiah, defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who are his legal heirs, came into possession of plaint schedule property and enjoying the same with their own rights to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property because in the year 1953, a stamped agreement was executed by grandfather of the plaintiff in favour of the father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The revenue records also clearly show that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property or making alienating or executing any documents in respect of the schedule property? (ii) To what relief?" 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants. 5 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 10. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 10 of 2014 before the first appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration: "(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property or making alienating or executing any documents in respect of the schedule property? (ii) To what relief?" 11. The first appellate Court, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Felt aggrieved of the same, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 16 of 2010 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Namavarapu Chantibabu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing respondent No. 1-plaintiff. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with the law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arises in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a 6 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances, two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of CPC, it is for them to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The undisputed fact is that the grandfather of the plaintiff by name Kaluva Lathhan @ Lathha is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property. It is also the admitted case of the appellants that original owner of plaint schedule property is Kaluva Lathhan. The contention of the appellants is that on 12-10-1953, the said Lathhan sold away plaint schedule property under an 1(2007) 8 SCC 155 7 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 agreement of sale to the father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. No scrap of paper has been filed by the appellants to show that the said original owner sold away plaint schedule property to them under an agreement of sale. It is not at all the case of the appellants that they have obtained a registered sale deed from the original owner of plaint schedule property. 17. In order to prove the case of respondent No. 1-plaintiff, he relied on his self testimony as P.W.1 and his evidence is well supported by documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A7. In cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.1 is not at all disturbed on material aspects of the case. Ex.A1 is copy of settlement adangal issued by Tahsildar concerned. Ex.A2 is copy of 10 (1) adangal account issued by Village Revenue Officer concerned, it indicates that Kaluva Ramaiah, who is son of Lathhan, was the pattadar of plaint schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his grandfather Lathhan died intestate and on the death of his grandfather, his father succeeded plaint schedule property by way of natural succession and till the death of his father, he had been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further pleaded and deposed in his evidence that about 20 years back, his father died intestate and he has been enjoying plaint schedule property by way of natural succession from the date of death of his father. As noticed supra, the oral evidence of P.W.1 is well corroborated by documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A7. Exs.A1 to A7 would indicate that possession of the plaintiff is recognized by revenue authorities and his name is mutated in revenue records. 18. The plaintiff herein filed simple suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of an immovable property. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. The present suit is for injunction simplicitor only with possession. Therefore, normally, the issue of title will not be directly and 8 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 substantially an issue and the prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It is also well settled that a finding on title cannot be recorded in a simple suit for prohibitory injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding the title. 19. In Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another2, the Apex Court held at para No. 11 as follows: "11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction." 20. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 would contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction without establishing his title and possession. As stated supra, the title of grandfather of the plaintiff is not disputed by the appellants. It is the specific case of the appellants that the father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a possessory agreement from the original owner of plaint schedule property. For the reasons best known to the appellants, they have not adduced any evidence to prove their pleadings in the written statement and they did not enter into witness box. In Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another3, the Apex Court held as follows: "Where a party to the suit does not enter into witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct." 2 2019 (17) SCC 692 3 AIR 1999 SC 1441 (1) 9 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 21. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 22. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur Vs. Kaki4. In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds, after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions, that no substantial question of law is involved and this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of CPC. 4 AIR 2006 SC 1975 10 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the decrees and judgments of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 21-04-2026, JSK 11 Judgment reserved on 15-04-2026 Judgment delivered on 21-04-2026 Judgment uploaded on 21-04-2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 550 OF 2023 DATE: 21ST APRIL, 2026 JSK