Back
2025 APHC 6797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
C Subramanyam - Appellant
Versus
A. Varadarajulu And Another and Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No.1560 of 2018
Decided on : 24-02-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : T JANARDHAN RAO
For the Respondent : KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction over property claimed as ancestral - Both lower courts dismissed the suit, finding insufficient evidence of title - Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish title, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case - No substantial questions of law were found to arise for consideration in the second appeal. (Paras 13, 16, 20, 21)
(B) Appeal - Nature of second appeal - A second appeal under Section 100 is not to re-evaluate facts but to determine if substantial questions of law exist - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or illegal. (Paras 13, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of property through a gift deed executed by his mother and brother, while the defendants claimed title through a partition deed and continuous possession. The trial court found the plaintiff failed to prove his claim.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of both lower courts were upheld, confirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff could establish his title over the property and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff must prove his own title and that the absence of evidence to support his claim led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
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 11.06.2018 in A.S.No.101 of 2015, on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 30.05.2015 passed in O.S.No.205 of 2011, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor (“trial Court” for short).
2. The appellant is herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.205 of 2011, on the file the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.205 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, with a prayer for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction and for costs.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.101 of 2015, on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff 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.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.205 of 2011, is as follows:
The plaint schedule property which is situated adjacent to the house of the plaintiff in the suit village is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Since the present house wherein the plaintiff is residing is a small one, the mother and brother of the plaintiff executed a registered gift deed on 07.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the gift deed’s acceptance the plaintiff obtained the house plan approved from the Grama Panchayat, Murakambattu. Right from the beginning the plaint schedule property was fenced on its 3 sides. The 4th side is the house of the plaintiff. The defendants who are strangers to the plaint schedule property claiming title over the plaint schedule property which was negatived by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants by influencing the police threatened the plaintiff not to go ahead with his plan of construction in the plaint schedule property while the plaintiff intending to make construction at the cost of his retirement benefits. The defendants also obtained the signature of the plaintiff and his mother on blank stamp papers by keeping them in the police station under coercion. The defendants are attempting to grab the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.
7. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant and contended as follows:
Originally the plaint schedule property is a grama kantam land, acquired 40 years ago by one A. Chinnaswamy, who is father of the defendants. During the lifetime, he enjoyed the plaint schedule property and constructed a hut and subsequently, he died 27 years ago. After his demise, his wife A. Chengamma and her children i.e., the defendants herein are enjoying the plaint schedule property without any interruption whatsoever from anybody till today. On 23.04.2010 the defendants and their family members got partitioned their joint family properties and in the partition, the plaint schedule property is allotted to the defendants as “C” schedule therein. After partition, the defendants made a requisition letter to the Executive Officer, Murakambatu for construction of a house in the plaint schedule property. At that time, the Executive Officer of Murakambattu Grama Panchayat informed the defendants about the plan approval for the very same schedule of property ob
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
A gift under Sec. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act requires acceptance by the donee and the original gift deed must be produced to establish its validity; failure to do so undermines the claim of ....
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the affirmative issue, and adverse possession requires the party to set up their own adverse title and remain in exclusive possession hostile to the tr....
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
