Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 421

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Smt Shameem Begum - Appellant
Versus
N. Laxmi - Respondent
Second Appeal No.203 of 2025
Decided On : 28-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MOHAMMED SANAULLAH FARHAN
For the Respondent: ABDUL NISSAR

Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts are upheld unless substantial legal questions arise; plaintiffs must substantiate claims with credible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 100 and 101 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - The appellants challenged a decree regarding title and possession of land, previously dismissed by the trial court and partly allowed by the first appellate court - Plaintiffs claimed ownership through a registered sale deed and reported unauthorized construction by defendants. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 19)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - It is essential for plaintiffs to establish their claim regarding title and possession with credible evidence, including documentary proof and testimonies of witnesses. (Paras 9, 15, 18)

(C) Concurrent findings - The High Court cannot interfere in second appeals regarding concurrent findings unless a substantial question of law is raised, and not merely factual disputes. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellants disputed title over an open plot sold to the plaintiffs by a previous owner, who claimed unauthorized constructions made by the defendants and sought relief through courts. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence, while the appellate court found the plaintiffs' ownership valid based on the sale deed.

Findings of Court:
The first appellate court found errors in the trial court’s conclusions and found merit in the plaintiffs’ claims, granting their ownership while denying damages sought.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs established ownership and possession of the suit plot, and whether the trial court erred in its dismissal based on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court's findings were maintained as the evidence presented was deemed sufficient; the trial court's dismissal was not adequately supported by cogent reasoning.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and appeal context established (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of property dispute (Para 4 , 5)
3. trial court's failure to acknowledge sufficient evidence led to appeal. (Para 9)
4. trial court's judgment and appeal decisions (Para 10 , 11)
5. appellate court's analysis and reasoning (Para 12 , 16)
6. appellate court upholds findings based on correct evidentiary evaluations. (Para 18)
7. restrained review of concurrent findings (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. final judgment dismissal with no costs (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANAALI SHETTY, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2025 in A.S.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad, whereby and whereunder the appeal was partly allowed setting aside judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 in O.S.No.5 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judgeat Narayankhed, Medak District.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

3. Heard Sri Mohammed Sanaullah Farhan, learned counsel for the appellants.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2015 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of suit open plot in survey No.22/1 admeasuring extent 201.66 square yards consisting of 2 bits admeasuring 100.83 square yards each situated at Narayankhed village, Medak District.In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the family friends since long time and intended to purchase an open land/plot in Narayankhed village for the purpose of construction of house; that one Anushamma@Anshammais the owner and possessor of the land covered under survey No.22/1 situated at Narayankhed town and Mandal District Medak and the said Anushamma offered to sell a piece of land in survey No.22/1 to an extent of 201.66 square yards and the plaintiffs have accepted to purchase the same; and accordingly, Anushamma received the entire sale consideration of Rs.70,700/- and executed registered sale deed bearing document No.13578/2005 dated 07.10.2005 and delivered possession of the said land to the plaintiffs.

5. It is further averred that the defendants are highly influential persons in the Gram Panchayath having support of the political leaders of Narayankhed; that defendants without having any right, title or interest have illegally raised basement in the suit plot and plaintiffs came to know about the same and questioned the defendants about construction of illegal and unauthorized basement in the suit open plot, but the defendants have denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs demanded to remove the illegal basement in the suit open plot, but defendants denied and refused. Therefore, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction and also to pay damages at Rs.1,00,000/- per year.

6. Defendants entered appearance but they failed to file written statement and therefore, they were set ex parte.

7. Basing on the pleadings in the plaint, the trial Court framed following issue:

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for there lief of decree as prayed for?”

8. To substantiate the case, P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and Ex.A.1/registered sale deed was marked on their behalf.

9. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 31.08.2015 by making following observations:

“(i)The sketch map filed by plaintiffs herein along with the suit only the suit plot was shown.There is no clear evidence before the Court where suit plotis situated in survey No.22/1 because generally any survey number consists many plots.Total sketch of survey No.22/1 because generally and survey number consists many plots.Total sketch of survey No.22/1 is not filed before the Court as to sh