Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19238
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Chalasani Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Kanagala Venkateswara Rao – Respondent
SA 214/2020
K V BHANU PRASAD, MOGULURU ISWARYA
The court affirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights over the property, declaring the contested sale deed null and void due to lack of valid consideration.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeals against judgments confirming declarations of ownership and permanent injunctions - The plaintiff claimed ownership over property and cancellation of a sale deed executed by the 5th defendant, who contested the claims citing financial assistance provided to family members - The court found the sale deed and mortgage deed to be fraudulent, affirming the plaintiff's ownership and possession rights. (Paras 10, 11, 21, 26)
(B) Appeal Jurisdiction - The right to appeal is not inherent, and substantial questions of law must be established for second appeals under Section 100 - The court emphasized that mere disagreements with lower court findings do not suffice for appeal. (Paras 16, 28)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff initiated a suit claiming absolute ownership of specific land parcels, alleging that the defendants colluded to execute a fraudulent sale deed in favor of the 5th defendant, who claimed to have provided financial assistance to the family. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the plaintiff's ownership and possession, declaring the sale deed null and void, and granted permanent injunction against interference by the defendants. (Paras 26, 27)
Issues: The court addressed whether the sale deed was valid and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants failed to prove the validity of the sale deed or that consideration was passed, thus affirming the plaintiff's claims of ownership and possession. (Paras 21, 26)
Result: Both second appeals are dismissed.
Common Judgment:
Second Appeal No.214 of 2020 is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 28-01-2020 in A.S.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 10-3-2017 in O.S.No.363 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, partly decreeing the suit granting the relief of declaration and dismissing the relief of permanent injunction; Whereas, Second Appeal No.215 of 2020 is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 28-01-2020 in A.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, by its Judgment and decree dated 10-3-2017 in O.S.No.363 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, by decreeing the entire suit granting the relief of permanent injunction also in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The appellant in both the second appeals is the 5th defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 7/respondents 2 to 6 are defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.363 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.363 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, with a prayer to grant the relief of declaration that he is absolute owner of plaint schedule property and consequently to declare that registered sale deed dated 07-4-2014 in the name of the 5th defendant is not valid and it is void to the extent of the schedule property and also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6, their men, agents, servants, followers, relatives etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, partly decreed the suit granting the relief of declaration, while dismissing the relief of permanent injunction. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.46 of 2017 and the 5th defendant filed A.S.No.47 of 2017 before the first appellate Court. The learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, allowed A.S.No.46 of 2017 by decreeing the entire suit granting the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, while dismissing A.S.No.47 of 2017 filed by the 5th defendant. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 5th defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of these two second appeals.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeals 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.363 of 2014, is as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.4-14 cents in R.S.No.177/2 and Ac.2-90 cents in R.S.No.139/2 of Buchavaram Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal i.e. Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff got the plaint schedule property during partition long back which was taken place among his brothers, who are defendants 1 and 3 and the plaintiff has been enjoying the plaint schedule property with absolute rights by obtaining pattadar pass books, title deeds and paying taxes. The 3rd defendant is unmarried person and he is staying with the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is wife and the 4th defendant is son of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is son-in-law of the 5th defendant. The 6th defendant is son-in-law of the 1st defendant. The 7th defendant is the Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, in whose limits the schedule properties are located.
(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff executed a registered General Power of Attorney on 30-3-1979 appointing his brother, the 1st defendant as his Agent to look after the schedule property and to manage the same on his behalf but not to sell them. Thereafter, the plaintiff underwent an operation in the year 1981 and later, he orally cancelled the said G
