Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Injunction Based on 1982 Gift Deed: Prior Admissions & Lack of Specific Denial Key in Dismissing Second Appeal (S.100 CPC, S.68 Evidence Act). - 2025-06-26

Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Second Appeal in Long-Standing Property Dispute

Hyderabad, AP – June 20, 2025 – The Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently dismissed a second appeal (SA No.1108 OF 2011), G. Manohara Reddy vs K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, thereby upholding the First Appellate Court's decision to grant a permanent injunction in favour of the original plaintiffs concerning a property dispute rooted in a 1982 gift deed. The High Court emphasized the significance of prior admissions by the appellants' predecessor and the lack of specific denial regarding the execution of the registered gift deed.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around a plaint schedule property initially claimed by the plaintiffs (respondents in the High Court) through a registered gift deed dated January 18, 1982, executed by Gaggalapalli Sunki Reddy and his wife G. Laxmamma . The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants (appellants in the High Court) from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

The Trial Court (Junior Civil Judge, Gooty) had initially dismissed the suit (O.S.No.225 of 2003). However, the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Gooty) reversed this decision in A.S.No.2 of 2010, allowing the appeal and granting the injunction. Aggrieved, the defendants approached the High Court in a second appeal.

Key Contentions

Appellants' (Defendants') Arguments: The appellants, G. Manohara Reddy and another, contended primarily that: * The plaintiffs had no records to prove their possession from the date of the gift deed (Ex.A.2) until 2002. * The First Appellate Court erroneously relied on a pattadar passbook (Ex.A.4) obtained after the suit was filed and while an appeal against its issuance was allegedly pending. * The gift deed was fabricated, never acted upon, and its original was not filed. They also argued that G. Sunki Reddy , one of the donors, did not have exclusive rights to gift the entire property as it was coparcenary. * The execution of the gift deed was not proven as per law, as attestors were not examined.

Respondents' (Plaintiffs') Arguments: The respondents, K. Chandrasekhar Reddy (whose legal representatives were later impleaded) and another, countered that: * The defendants had not specifically denied the execution of the registered gift deed in their written statement but had only alleged forgery and fabrication, which they failed to prove. * Crucially, the father of the 1st defendant ( Venkata Reddy ) and one of the donors ( G. Laxmamma ) had admitted the execution of the gift deed and the delivery of possession to the plaintiffs in a previous suit (O.S.No.24 of 1991). * The Trial Court's finding that the suit property was allotted to G. Sunki Reddy in a family partition had become final as it was not challenged by the defendants in the first appeal. * Under the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was not necessary to call an attesting witness for a registered document (not being a Will) if its execution was not specifically denied. * The registered gift deed (Ex.A.2, a certified copy) was in force, and possession was delivered under it. Title follows possession, and the defendants failed to show when the plaintiffs were dispossessed.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court, presided over by Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao , meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments.

On the Validity and Proof of the Gift Deed: The Court noted that the execution of the registered gift deed (Ex.A.2, dated 18.01.1982) was admitted by Venkata Reddy (father of the 1st appellant and son of the donor Sunki Reddy ) and by G. Laxmamma (one of the donors and wife of Sunki Reddy ) in earlier suit proceedings (O.S.No.24 of 1991). The judgment stated, "Since late Venkata Reddy himself admitted about the execution of registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs, now the legal representatives of late Venkata Reddy are not supposed to contend that the said gift settlement deed is not a genuine document."

Addressing the appellants' contention that attestors were not examined, the Court referred to the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that since the execution of the registered gift deed was not specifically denied by the defendants (who only pleaded forgery and fabrication, which they failed to prove), the plaintiffs were under no obligation to examine an attesting witness. The Court cited Govindbhai Chhhotabhai Patel and others vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai in support.

On Possession and Title: The Court observed that the recitals in the gift deed (Ex.A.2) indicated that possession was delivered to the plaintiffs in 1982. It further noted, "The registered gift settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982 is not yet cancelled till so far, therefore, the title is with the plaintiffs and the title follows possession. Moreover, the defendants did not adduce any legal evidence to show that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property." Regarding the pattadar passbook (Ex.A.4), the Court acknowledged it was obtained post-suit but highlighted the plaintiffs' counsel's submission that the application was made pre-suit. No evidence was produced by the appellants to show the passbook was cancelled.

On Scope of Second Appeal (Section 100 CPC): The High Court reiterated the settled law that its power to interfere with findings of fact under Section 100 CPC is limited. Interference is permissible only if findings are erroneous due to being contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal positions, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence. The Court found, "There was no infirmity in the reasoning of First Appellate Court which called for interference."

The Court also addressed the substantial questions of law framed at the admission of the appeal:

1. Possession from date of gift deed: The Court found that the gift deed itself, coupled with admissions in prior litigation, sufficiently indicated delivery of possession in 1982, and the defendants failed to prove subsequent dispossession.

2. Reliance on post-litem pattadar pass book: The Court considered that the application for the passbook was pre-suit and no cancellation was proven, making it a relevant piece of evidence in an injunction suit.

The judgment emphasized, "the finding of partition of the suit schedule property in between Sunki Reddy and his two sons and allotment of suit schedule property herein to the share of Sunki Reddy in the family partition reached its finality," as the defendants had not challenged this finding of the trial court in their first appeal. This negated the argument that Sunki Reddy could not have gifted the entire property.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved that warranted interference with the First Appellate Court's decision. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao stated, "Right of appeal is not an automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by statute. When a statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involves substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit an appeal over the factual findings arrived by the First Appellate Court."

The Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs. This judgment reinforces the evidentiary weight of registered documents like gift deeds, the binding nature of admissions made by predecessors-in-interest, and the stringent criteria for interference by the High Court in second appeals concerning findings of fact. It also clarifies the application of Section 68 of the Evidence Act regarding the proof of execution of documents where such execution is not specifically denied.