Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Thatiparthi Subba Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Yadala Dandemma – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 261 of 2023
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Substantial Question of Law - Property Dispute - Section 100 CPC - Adverse Possession
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership of a property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court confirmed the decision. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC, arguing that the lower courts' judgments were based on presumption and conjectures, ignoring material facts and interpretation of law.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court observed that the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession of the property on the date of filing the suit. The court noted that there was no positive or substantial evidence to determine the succession of the property. Additionally, the appointed Advocate Commissioner's report revealed discrepancies in the property's location as claimed by the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to prove possession rendered him ineligible for the relief of injunction. The court also stated that even if the respondent did not have title over the property, his possession was sufficient to non-suit the appellant. The court concluded that the plaintiff could file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Issues: The issues involved the plaintiff's lawful possession of the property, entitlement to the relief of permanent injunction, and the substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to establish lawful possession, the absence of substantial evidence regarding property succession, and the ineligibility for the relief of injunction due to lack of possession. The court also emphasized the importance of possession in property disputes and suggested the plaintiff file a separate suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal at the stage of admission, upholding the judgments of the lower courts. No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
JUDGMENT :
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 14.07.2022 passed in A.S. No. 5 of 2016 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram, confirming the decree and judgment dated 20.11.2015 passed in O.S No. 196 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.
2. Heard Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri G.Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 196 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni (for short “the trial Court”).
4. For convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which is devolved upon him on the death of his father and thus he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued to him by the revenue authorities. The No. 3 Adangal copy was also issued in favour of him. The 1st defendant is the cousin sister and the defendants No. 2 to 4 are cousin brothers of him. The defendants No. 5 and 6 are henchmen of the defendants No. 1 to 4. As the defendants and their henchmen are tried to remove the soil of seed bed from the plaint schedule property, neighboring ryots rushed to there and resisted the illegal activity of the defendants, due to which, the defendants and their men flew away proclaiming that they shall trespass and occupy the plaint schedule property illegally. Therefore the plaintiff filed suit for grant of permanent injunction.
6. The defendants No. 5 and 6 were set ex-parte. The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants No. 2 to 4 denying all the averments made in the plaint. The father of 1st defendant married one Gangamma and there were disputes between the parents of this defendant. It is stated that on 19.05.2015 the plaint schedule property was given to 1st defendant on registered settlement deed. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment and the Government issued Pattadar passbooks etc., in favour of 1st defendant. It is also stated that even knowing the above fact, the plaintiff has filed the false suit.
7. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court famed the following issues:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and got examined one Villager as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 to DW.4 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.
9. The trial Court upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels, and on consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which ended in dismissal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal came to be filed.
10. This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC on the ground that the judgment and decree of both courts below is totally basing on the presumption, surmises and conjectures, ignoring the material facts available on record and interpretation of law.
11. There cannot be any dispute that, under the amended Section 100 C.P.C. a party aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate court has no absolute right of appeal. He can neither challenge the decree on a question of fact or on a question of law. The second appeal lies only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The word ‘substantial’ as qualifying ‘question of law’, means and conveys – of having substance, essential, real, or sound worth, important, considerable, f
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of lawful possession in property disputes and the ineligibility for the relief of injunction in the absence of such possession.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
A co-owner's entitlement to seek permanent injunction based on established title, possession, and enjoyment, even in the absence of exclusive possession, when the defendant fails to prove her claim.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate lawful possession of the property at the time of filing; mere tax receipts are insufficient without additional evidence of possessio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.
The possession as on the date of the filing of the suit is crucial while granting or refusing the injunction, and the question of title is only incidental.
Failure to seek a declaration of title when there is a cloud over the ownership, and lack of proof of possession can lead to the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
