The courts upheld that unregistered deeds do not confer valid title, leading to plaintiffs' failure to prove ownership or possession; factual disputes in appeal do not raise substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT :

(LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.)

This Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 18.09.2024, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in A.S.No.232 of 2013, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 06.06.2013, passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar , in O.S.No.770 of 2010 was confirmed.

2. The appellantsherein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendantsbefore the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed O.S.No.770 of 2010, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the Plot Nos.36,37, 38 & 39 admeasuring 639.86 Sq.yards in Sy.No.7 at Balapur Village, SaroornagarMandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred as ‘schedule property’). In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property having purchased the same fromSmt.UmaBai,under a sale deed which was not registered before Sub Registrar Office, but registered before Gram Panchayat on 21.06.1979 by paying a stamp duty of Rs.320.50/-. After purchasing the schedule property, said Uma Bai applied for the construction of house, however, he could not make construction due to lack of time and that the said Uma Bai, perfected her title by adverse possessionand executed gift deed on 27.05.2009 in favour of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.2 along with his mother filed O.S.No.975 of 2008 before II Additional Junior Civil Judge against G. Raghunandhana Chary and four others for perpetual injunction and got temporary injunction in respect of land admeasuring 20 guntas and that defendant No.2 has no claim over the schedule property. Defendant No. 1 interfered with the possession on 10.12.2010 by removing boundary stones andplaintiff lodged a complaint withPahadisharif Police Station on 11.12.2010 and the same was registered as Cr.No.433 of 2010. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the suit and stated that plaintiff was never in possession of the schedule property and the suit is filed only to grab the schedule land; that suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs alleged to be separate owners of different extents to an extent of 639.86 sq.yds and they did not pay separate court fees; that sale deed under which plaintiffs are claiming ownership is invalid and no title is conferred and the same is not registered before Sub Registrar Office; that document of Uma bai is only agreement of sale and as such this suit is hit by provision of Order II Rule2 of C.P.C., and gift deeds executed on behalf of the plaintiff are also invalid as Uma bai did not have any title. Defendants filed suit in O.S.No.948 of 1998 before I Additional District Judge for Sy.No.7, 265, 276 & 370 of Balapur Village and Sy.No.48 of Roshandowla Village, against B. Yadagiri and others and the same was decreed and appeal is filed in A.S.No.36 of 2003 which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It is further averred that the land in Sy.No.7, falls under purview of HUDA and no approved layout from HUDA has been filed and however, O.S.No.975 of 2008 is pending and also the receipts issued by the sarpanch dated 21.06.1979 and 22.06.1979, shows that there are lot of variations. It is further averred that there was no cause of action arose against defendant No.2 and he is in actual possession of the suit property and plaintiffs