In a second appeal, the court cannot overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts without proof of legal error or perversity, stressing the burden of proof on the claimant regarding possession.

JUDGMENT:

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. The second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge at Medak confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak, wherein, the suit filed by the appellant herein seeking perpetual injunction is dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is claiming to be owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.248/4 to an extent of Ac.2.06½ Gts., bounded by East: Residential School, West: Agricultural land of K. Tirupathi, North: Road, South: Agricultural land of K. Anantha Ramireddi, situated near Residential School, Medak Municipality, Medak Town and District. With respect to title, the appellant submitted that originally M. Janardhan Reddy owned the suit schedule property and then sold it to T. Satish and another through registered sale deed document No.9 of 1995, dated 03.01.1995. Thereafter, said T. Satish and another sold the suit schedule property to the appellant vide registered sale deed document No.1023 of 1999, dated 25.10.1999. Ever since, the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. She also availed agricultural loan from Indian Bank, Medak by keeping the title deed as collateral security. The respondents are in real estate business. The said respondents without any right or interest have interfered with the appellant’s possession over the suit schedule land taking advantage of her absence near the suit schedule property. The appellant is living in Hyderabad for her childrens’ education and therefore, not residing locally. The respondents approached the appellant demanding to sell the land, failing which, they would grab the same. The suit schedule property is located in a prime place in the centre of Medak. On 02.10.2018, the respondents with antisocial elements tried to dispossess the appellant and she resisted the same with great difficulty and filed the suit to protect herself from being dispossessed from the suit land.

4. The respondent No.2 filed written statement which is adopted by respondent No.1 as well. The case of respondents is that the appellant does not have any land in her possession in Sy.No.248/4 admeasuring Ac.2.06½ Gts. The land of respondent No.2 is located on the western side of land of the appellant’s land. The respondent No.2 called upon the appellant to prove her title originating from M. Janardhan Reddy and then T. Satish and another. The respondents denied making attempts to interfere with the possession of the appellant and have never tried to grab the suit schedule property. The cause of action on 02.10.2018 is concocted only for the purpose of filing the suit. Further, according to respondent No.2, he owns land in Sy.No.248/4/5A25 to an extent of Ac.0.08 Gts. and Sy.No.248/3/E to an extent of Ac.0.02 Gts., total of Ac.0.10 Gts. in Medak Town bounded on East: Land of the appellant, West: 20 ft. road, North: Agricultural land of C. Pochaiah and South: Agricultural land of Anantha Ram Reddy. The respondent No.2 has ROR 1B and pattadar pass book and title with respect to his Ac.0.10 Gts of land. According to respondent No.2, the appellant with a malafide intention to grab his land filed a false suit. Further, there is no ground for making the respondent No.1 as a party to the suit and his presence amounts to mis-joinder of parties. The respondent No.2 is in possession of his own land and the suit lacks merits.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of