Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bussa Narayana vs Muda Raja Venkateswarlu Died on 7 August, 2025
APHC010162702019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.405 of 2019
Between:
Bussa Narayana, S/o. Pedda Venkataiah. aged 56 years. Occ;
Cultivation. Sankarapuram Village. H/o. Pedda Kandukur. Ardhaveedu
Mandal. Prakasam District
...Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
AND
1. Muda Raja Venkateswarlu (Died)
2. Muda Salamma. W/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 64 years
Housewife, R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal
Prakasam District.
3. Muda Srinivasa Naik, S/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 38 years,
M.A., B.Ed. R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal,
Prakasam District.
4. Muda Lakshmi Narayana Naik, S/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 37
years, R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam
District.
5. Pathalavath Lakshmi Bai, W/o. Jayachandra Naik, aged 44 years
Housewife, R/o. Pedda Dornala Village and Mandal, Prakasam District
V -
...Respondents/ Respondents/Plaintiffs
Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Decree and
Judgment, dated 22.02.2019 passed in A.S No. 63 of 2015 on the file of Court
of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur dismissing the appeal thereby
confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 04.06.2012 passed in O.S. No.
204 of 2000 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,
Prakasam 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 Smt Nimmagadda Revathi,
Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, Advocate for
Respondents.
This Court doth judgment and decree as follows:
1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is allowed;
2. That the decree and judgment passed by the VI Additional District
Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District and the Principal Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Giddalur, Prakasam District be and are hereby liable
to be set aside.
3. That the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2000 on the file of Principal Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Giddalur, be and is hereby dismissed;
4. That each party do bear their own costs in the Second Appeal.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District.
"f
2. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur, Prakasam District.
3. Two CD Copies
TK
vna
>
HIGH COURT
DATED:07/08/2025
DECREE
SA No.405of2019
o 21 AUG 2025
^N^Iufrent SectiojjX'J^
ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL
APHC010162702019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
B
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.405 of 2019
Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Decree and
Judgment, dated 22.02.2019 passed in A.S No. 63 of 2015 on the file of Court
of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur dismissing the appeal thereby
confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 04.06.2012 passed in O.S. No.
204 of 2000 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,
Prakasam District.
Between;
Bussa Narayana, S/o. Pedda Venkataiah, aged 56 years, Occ:
Cultivation, Sankarapuram Village, H/o. Pedda Kandukur, Ardhaveedu
Mandal, Prakasam District
...Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
AND
1. Muda Raja Venkateswarlu (Died)
2. Muda Salamma, W/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 64 years.
Housewife, R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal,
Prakasam District.
3. Muda Srinivasa Naik, S/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 38 years
M.A., B.Ed. R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal,
Prakasam District.
4. Muda Lakshmi Narayana Naik, S/o. Late Raja Venkateswarlu, aged 37
years, R/o. Pedda Kandukur Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam
District.
5. Pathalavath Lakshmi Bai,.W/o. Jayachandra Naik, aged 44 years.
Housewife, R/o. Pedda Dornala Village and Mandal, Prakasam District
...Respondents/ Respondents/Plaintiffs
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under 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 grant stay of operation of Decree and Judgment dated 04.06.2012
passed in O.S. No.204 of 2000 on the file of Court of Learned Junior Civil
Judge, Giddalur as has been confirmed by Decree and Judgment, dated
22.02.2019 passed in A.S No.63 of 2015 on the file of Court of Learned VI
Additional District Judge, Markapur, pending disposal of the main Second
Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant : Smt Nimmagadda Revathi
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar
The Court made the following order:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Second Appeal No.405 of 2019
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
22.02.2019 in A.S.No.63 of 2015, on the file of learned VI Additional District
Judge, Markapur, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 04.06.2012 in
O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Giddalur.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant, the respondents 1 to 5
herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file of learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.
3. The 1®' plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file
of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, with a prayer for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of plaintiff in plaint schedule land and for costs of the suit.
During the pendency of the suit, the 1®' plaintiff died and hfs legal
representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2000, on the file
of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur. Felt aggrieved of the same,
the defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.63 of 2015, on the file of
learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur. The learned VI Additional
District Judge, Markapur, dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and
judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant 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.
2
VGKR, J. .
SA_405_2019
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.204 of 2000, is as follows:
(a) The 1®* plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule land from one Karampudi Krishnamacharyulu, son of Garudacharyulu of Ayyavaripalli village, ' hamlet of Pedda Kandukur, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District, at present Ravvaram Village of Nujerlla Mandal, Guntur District, under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1999 for consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The plaint schedule property was the ancestral property of plaintiff's vendor. On the same day of registration, the 1®' plaintiff was given possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land by his vendor. Ever since, the 1 St plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land without any interruption.
(b) Subsequently, the 1=' plaintiff got pattadar passbook and title deed book from the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Ardhaveedu Mandal. Neither the defendant nor anybody else is having any right, title possession or enjoyment in the plaint schedule land except the plaintiff. At the time of purchase, the defendant also wanted to purchase the land from the vendor of the plaintiff, But the 1 St plaintiff's vendor sold the plaint schedule land to the 1 plaintiff, as St the plaintiff offered more price than the defendant. As such, the defendant developed grudge against the 1®* plaintiff.
(c)The defendant since 01.08.2000 is proclaiming in the village that he would disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff in plaint schedule land. Hence the 1"' plaintiff filed the suit,
(d) During pendency of the suit, the 1 plaintiff died leaving the plaintiffs St 2 to 5 as his legal representatives as such, they came on record to prosecute the suit.
7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denyinathe material averments in the plaint and contended as follows;
3% • VGKR, J,
SA 405 2019
The suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction without asking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable and plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at any time. Originally the plaint schedule property belonged to one Alluri Rangacharyulu and it is his self-
acquired property and he acquired the same more than 40 years back and said Rangacharyulu had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. Said Rangacharyulu had no male issues. He had one daughter by name Karampudi Narayanamma. After the death of said Rangacharyulu, his daughter Narayanamma alone succeeded to his properties and she alone has got right, title, possession and enjoyment in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff's vendor Karampudi Krishnamacharyulu is the husband of said Karampudi Narayanamma. He further contended that said Krishnamacharyulu addicted to bad vices and there is no cordial relationship between them, as such, both of them are living separately since more than 15 years. There is land of the defendant's family to the east of suit schedule land. During the lifetime of Alluri Rangacharyulu, the defendant is continuously cultivating the suit land on behalf of Karampudi Narayanamma. Said Narayanamma to meet her family necessities, sold the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 13.01.2000 to the defendant for consideration of Rs.80,000/-. Since then, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with full and absolute rights. The question of sale of suit schedule property to the 1®' plaintiff by his vendor does not arise. The plaintiff in collusion with V.A.O. fabricated the pattadar passbook and title deed. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge, framed the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
(2) To what relief?4
VGKR, J.
SA_405_2019
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.63 of 2015, on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur wherein. the following points came up for consideration:
1) Whether the deceased plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
11. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points , as above. against the defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant in O.S.No.204 of 2000 filed the present second appeal before this Court.
12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 04.04.2025, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law;
(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit of the respondent / plaintiff for the relief of bare permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title in view of the fact that the plaintiff's title is defective and under cloud as evolved and settled by many decisions of apex Court in the interest of Justice?
5VGKR, J.
SA_405_2019 (2) Whether the findings of the Court below that the appellant / defendant had not proved his title and possession to the plaint schedule property legally sustainable?
13. Heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents through virtual mode.
14. In a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot substantiate its own opinion for that of First Appellate Court unless the Court finds that the conclusions drawn by both the Courts are erroneous being, (i) contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law or (ii) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court or (iii) based on inadmissible or no evidence.
15. The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by both the Courts below and if the First Appellate Court has exercises in its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in a second appeal.
16. The undisputed facts are originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Alluri Rangacharyulu and he died intestate. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the 1®' plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from one Karampudi Krishnamacharyulu on 23.11.1999 and the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Krishnamacharyulu. The claim of the defendant is that he purchased the plaint schedule property from one Karampudi Narayanamma, daughter of Alluri Rangacharyulu and after death VGKR, j.
SA_405_2019 Of her father Rangacharyulu, Narayanamma alone succeeded his properties and enjoying the same with absolute rights.
17. As could be seen from the above pleadings of both the parties, originally, the suit schedule prqperty belongs to one Alluri Rangacharyulu. The vendor of the defendant claimed that she is the daughter of said Alluri Rangacharyulu. While so, the vendor of the plaintiff claimed he is nephew of late Alluri Rangacharyulu and said Rangacharyulu had no male issues and as per the own admissions of vendor of the 1®* plaintiff i.e. P.W.3, the vendor of the defendant is none other than his wife. As noticed supra, the vendor of the 1 plaintiff is not a Class-1 heir of late Rangacharyulu. In Ex.A. 1 sale ^eed, the source of acquisition of the property is mentioned as ancestral ^perty of vendor of 1"^ plaintiff. Whereas, the vendor of the 1^* niaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he has no properties on his own and he did not get any property from his ancestors Furthermore, he admits in his evidence itself that Narayanamma i.e. vendor of the defendant is his wife. He further admits that he does not know the father name of Rangacharyulu.
18. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.3 certificate said to have been issued by Village Revenue Officer. The Village Revenue Officer is examined as P.W.4. As per the statement of P.W.4, he issued Ex.A.3 certificate in favour of Bhuhiavath Sreenu Naik. He deposed that Narayanamma is the daughter of Sreepathi Venkata Sudarshanacharyulu @ Venkateswarlu and P.W.3 married said Narayanamma. In his evidence in cross-examination, he admits that Ex.A.3 certificate is not entered in the revenue records and there is no round seal on Ex.A.3 certificate. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.4 that the vendor of the 1®' plaintiff is the nephew of Rangacharyulu. As per the statement of wife of vendor of the 1®* plaintiff, by name Narayanamma, the vendor of the 1 plaintiff Krishnamacharyulu is not the nephew of Rangacharyulu.
7ess • VGKR, J.
SA 405 2019
19. The defendant relied on Ex.B.2 certificate dated 03.03.2006 said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandai Revenue Officer is examined as D.W.5. As per his evidence, he got issued a residence certificate to the defendant's vendor by name Ayyaluri Narayanamma, daughter of Rangacharyulu and said certificate was given after verification of the particulars of party and Village Revenue Officer of Vellaturu Village of Bollapalli Mandal also signed on the said residence certificate and the said certificate is issued by him. Though he was cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, in cross-examination, his evidence is not shattered on the material aspects of the case. It is also evident that Ex.B.2 certificate is issued on 03.06.2006. Ex.A.3 certificate is obtained by the 1®* plaintiff on 05.01.2009, moreover, Ex.A.3 certificate is alleged to have been issued by Village Revenue Officer. Whereas, Ex.B.2 certificate is said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, in which, the Village Revenue Officer has also signed in Ex.B.2 certificate.
20. In a mere suit for permanent injunction, the general principles are where the plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for injunction simplicitor will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person, who does not prove a better title by seeking prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession, is not entitled to an injunction against a rightful owner.
21. In the case on hand, to prove their possession, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.1 registered sale deed, Ex.A.2 pattadar passbook and Ex.A.4 title deed passbook. Ex.A.1 is not a conclusive proof to show that the 1®' plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Moreover, Ex.A.1 sale deed is dated 23.11.1999. Within 10 months from the date'of sale deed, the 1®' plaintiff approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of prohibitory injunction. In the written statement itself, the defendant specifically 8 VGKR.J. .
SA_405_2019 pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for bare injunction without asking the relief of declaration of title, is not at all maintainable. It is the specific case of both parties that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Alluri Rangacharyulu. The vendor of the plaintiff claims that he is the nephew of Rangacharyulu. Whereas, the vendor of the defendant claims that she is the daughter of Rangacharyulu. It is also relevant to say that both the vendors of the 1®' plaintiff and defendant, are none other than the husband and wife.
22. The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.2 pattadar passbook and Ex.A.4 title deed passbook. In Exs.A.2 and A.4, the revenue authorities made an endorsement on 31.01.2000 about the purchase of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 and the nature of the land is a wet land. Even, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that since the date of purchase, he is raising paddy, red gram, horse gram and sunflower. In such a case, what prevent the plaintiff to file No.3 Revenue Adangal to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, both the parties herein are claiming possession over the plaint schedule property. No doubt, the defendant has not yet filed pattadar passbook and title deed. Moreover, the plaint schedule property is not a small extent of land, it is an extent of Ac.4-21 cents.
23. In a case of Smt Sawarni vs Smt Inder Kaur and others\ the Hon'ble Apex Court held mutation in revenue records entitled the person in whose' favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question, Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs did not file any land revenue receipts to show that from the date of sale deed, the 1 plaintiff is paying land revenue to the Government.
24. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants tried to interfere to disturb such lawful possession ^ (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 223 9 VGKR, J.
SA 405 2019 in respect of landed property. Possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. Admittedly, the plaintiffs did not file any revenue Adangals and land revenue receipts to prove the actual use and cultivation of huge extent of Ac.4-21 cents of wet land. In fact, there is no specific averment in the plaint itself that the defendant tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. In the plaint, it was simply averred that since 01.08.2000, the defendant is proclaiming in the village that he would disturb the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff.
25. Both the Courts below failed to consider the complicated questions of fact and law and failed to consider the important crucial aspects, those are as follows:
(i) The claim of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff got title from his vendor under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1999 and the same is entered in pattadar passbook and title deed on 31.01.2000 and within a span of eight months, the 1®* plaintiff filed a simple suit for prohibitory injunction. Even assume the 1®^ plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property, his possession is only a months' possession just prior to filing of the suit,
(ii) The claim of the plaintiffs is that the 1®' plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on 23.11.1999 under Ex.A.1 from one Krishnamacharyulu i.e. P.W.3, who himself admitted that his wife sold away the plaint schedule property to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13.01.2000. In Ex.A.1, the vendor of the 1®' plaintiff referred the source of property is his ancestral property. Whereas, the vendor of the 1®* plaintiff admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he has no properties on his own and he did not get any property from his ancestors,
(iii) It is undisputed by both sides that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to late Rangacharyulu. Even it is the case of the vendor of the 1®' plaintiff that he is the nephew of said 10 VGKR, J.
SA_405 2019 Rangacharyulu and in Ex.A.1 registered sale deed, the source of acquisition of property is mentioned as ancestral property. Whereas, as noticed supra, as per the own admissions of P.W.3 i.e. the vendor of the 1®* plaintiff, he has no properties on his own and he did not get 'any property from his ancestors. It is the specific case of the vendor of the defendant that she is the only daughter of late Rangacharyulu and after death of Rangacharyulu, she succeeded the plaint schedule property. But the vendor of the 1"' plaintiff has strongly disputing the parentage of the vendor of the defendant. It is admitted by both the parties that both the vendor of the 1 plaintiff and vendor of the defendant are none other than the husband and wife and husband alienated the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed to the 1®* plaintiff and wife alienated the plaint schedule property under Ex.B.1 registered sale deed to the defendant.
(iv) Both the Courts below failed to consider that the defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement itself that the suit filed by the 1 plaintiff for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not at all maintainable. In the written statement itself, the defendant specifically pleaded that originally the plaint schedule property belongs to one Alluri Rangacharyulu and his vendor Narayanamma is the daughter of said Rangacharyulu and plaintiff's vendor Krishnamacharyulu is the husband of Narayanamma and there are disputes in between both Krishnamacharyulu and Narayanamma and Krishnamacharyulu addicted to bad vices and there is no cordial relationship in between both of them. Though the defendant has specifically pleaded in the written statement itself that the simple suit for bare injunction is not at all maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, but the learned trial Judge failed to frame the issue on the said aspect and even the first appellate Judge also 11 VGKR, J.
SA 405 2019 has not even framed the point for determination on the said aspect. In fact, there is a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff.
26. The first appellate Judge and the trial Court held in their judgments that the plaintiffs relied on pattadar passbook and'title deed, but the defendant failed to take steps to cancel the pattadar passbook and title deed before the revenue authorities. As noticed supra, within a span of months after obtaining the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and the defendant herein is pursuing his remedies before the civil Court, therefore, the defendant is not at all expect to fight before the revenue authorities. In fact, the plaint schedule property is the wet land in an extent of Ac.4-21 cents. To prove the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not filed any revenue Adangals. The revenue Adangals will prove the possession of the property. It is also relevant to say to prove the possession of the vendor of the plaintiff, the plaintiffs have not even filed pattadar passbook and title deed passbook of the vendor of the 1®* plaintiff
27. The first appellate Judge held in its judgment that the defendant failed to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove that he is in lawful possession over the plaint schedule property. But the learned first appellate Judge thrown the burden on the defendant to prove his possession, which is nothing but perversive finding.
28. As noticed supra, both the Courts below ignored the aforesaid complicated questions of fact and law and failed to consider the aforesaid crucial aspects.
29. Learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs would contend that both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is in possession over the plaint schedule property and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts.
12VGKR; J.
SA 405 2019 '
30.
The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the findings of facts arrived by both the Courts below, but does not absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where:-
(1) The Courts below haye ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence:
(2) The Courts have drawn wrong inference from proved facts by applying the law wrongfully; or (3) The Courts have wrongfully cast the burden of proof.
31. In the case on hand, both the Courts below have ignored material evidence viz., there was a cloud over the title of the vendor of the 1 plaintiff and both the Courts below have not considered the Ex.B.2 said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which is much prior to obtaining Ex.A.3 certificate said to have been issued by the Village Revenue Officer. Whereas, Ex.B.2 is issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and signature of Village Revenue Officer is also there in Ex.B.2. The Courts below have failed to consider that after obtaining Ex.A.1 sale deed, within a span often months, the plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction. Moreover, the entry of the sale deed of the 1"' plaintiff is made on 31.01.2000 in pattadar passbook and title deed by the revenue authorities, just seven months prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiffs did not file any authenticated documents of proof of possession viz., the revenue Adangals to prove the possession of the 1®' plaintiff. In such a case; it is not safe to come to conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property.
32. In the written statement itself, the defendant specifically pleaded that his vendor is the daughter of Alluri Rangacharyulu and the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of said Rangacharyulu and after the death of Rangacharyulu, Narayanamma, being the sole daughter of Rangacharyulu, is in possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendant purchased the same from said Narayanamma. According to the 13 VGKR, J.
SA 405 2019 plaintiffs, the vendor of the 1®' plaintiff is the nephew of Rangacharyulu and originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to Rangacharyulu. In such a case, the simple suit for permanent injunction is not at all maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title. The learned trial Judge and first appellate Judge have not even considered the aforesaid aspects. There is a serious title dispute in between both the parties to the suit. In such a case, a / simple suit for bare injunction is not at all maintainable, since there is a cloud / ' over the title of the 1 plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property.
33. In a case of Yabdyarlaros.Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) v. Ma&Niolrasl. Harakchand Shah (Dead) and others^, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
" The position is well settled that when the judgment of the final Court of fact is based on mis-interpretation of documentary evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere with the judgment. The position is also well settled that admission of parties or their witnesses are relevant pieces of evidence and should be given due weightage by Courts. A finding of fact ignoring such admissions or concessions is vitiated in law and can be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal...."
34. The law is well settled that if the judgment of the first appellate Court is based on mis-interpretation of documentary evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence by ignoring material evidence, then the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere with the said judgment passed by the learned first appellate Judge.
35. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit for bare injunction filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, the suit in O.S.No.204 of 2000 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, is hereby dismissed.
^ (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 404
14
VGKR, J. ■
SA 405 2019 "
36.
In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. 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.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO \ JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. The VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, (with records if any)
2. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur, Prakasam District.
3. One CC to Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri Devalaraju Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records)
6. Two CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA No.405 of 2019 ^ 21 AUG 2025 , O Co ^s^^ntSec ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL