IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantial questions of law in second appeals and the burden of proof in property ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 30/4/2014 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2012 on the file of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur, confirming the decree and judgment dtd. 18/8/2012 passed in O.S No.136 of 2006 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.136 of 2006 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur (for short "the trial Court").

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the III Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur (for short "the first appellate Court") in A.S.No.93 of 2012.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and he purchased it from its rightful owner, under registered sale deed dtd. 21/4/2005 for a valid consideration of Rs.75,000.00 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally the property belonged to one Dhanpat Raj and Company rep. by its partner Lakshmichand has purchased the same from him. The defendants are strangers and have no right over the property. But they are claiming that they are the rightful owners and are claiming their right under sale deeds dtd. 26/5/2001 and 31/1/2003 respectively and said documents were obtained by impersonating the original owner cum partner Dhanpat Raj. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S No.136 of 2006 before the trial Court.

5. The 1st defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by 2nd and 3rd defendants and they denied the right and title of the plaintiff. Dhanpat Raj and Co., rep. by its partner Lakshmi Chand purchased the property from one Shyamala Devi who was its rightful owner on 7/9/1977 for a valid consideration of Rs.1500.00. The plaintiff purchased the property from one Kantilal Pratap Chand and he was not rightful owner. In fact the defendants purchased the property from said Lakshmi Chand who was its rightful owner and since their purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the plaintiff purchased the property from a stranger, he is not entitled to any declaration and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the sale deed dtd. 21/4/2005 in favour of plaintiff is true, valid and confirms title in favour of plaintiff

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of plaint schedule property?

3. Whether the sale deed in favour of the defendants dtd. 26/5/2001, 5/9/2001 and 31/1/2003 and true valid on binding on the plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

5. To what relief?

7. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 and his vendor was examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on his behalf, and on behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and one of the attestors was examined as DW.2 and Ex.B1 was marked on their behalf.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S No.93 of 2012 before the first appellate Court. After hearing the both sides, the first appellate Court has framed point for consideration as under:

i) Whether the decree and judgment of trial Court is sustainable?

9. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal suit with costs by confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.136 of 2006. Challenging the same, the present second appeal came to be filed.

10. Heard Sri I. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

11. This Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 CPC on the ground that the judgment and decree of both court