APHC010013162022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 139/2022 Between:

C.b.sudhakar Babu ...APPELLANT AND P Abdul Jaleel Khan and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following:

Reserved on 12.03.2026 Pronounced on 17.03.22002266: APHC:20027 Uploaded on 17.03.2026 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.139 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2021, in A.S.No.34 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 12.07.2018, in O.S.No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, with a prayer for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and their men, not to interfere with the suit schedule property in any manner and with costs.

3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant No.2 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellant herein is the defendant No.2, the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.25 of 2016. During the pendency of the appeal suit, before the trial Court, the defendant No.1 died without any legal heirs.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.105 of 1995.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.25 of 2016, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the plaint schedule property situated in Sy.No.271/A within Guntakal Municipality limits and he purchased the vacant site under a registered sale deed for Rs.8,000/- on 13.04.1994 from the defendant No.1. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.1 also sold the same plaint schedule property to the defendant No.2 by colluding with each other on 30.12.2010 for Rs.1,34,000/- and executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal. He further pleaded that the defendant No.2 in turn mortgaged the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 on 17.09.2012, though he has no right and title over the same. Knowing all the aspects, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, but the same has gone in vain. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The defendant No.1 died without any legal heirs. The case of the defendant No.2 as per the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 is as follows:

The defendant No.2 purchased the plaint schedule property from his lawful owner on 13.12.2010 for a valid consideration of Rs.1,34,000/- and since then he was in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of one and all. The defendant No.2 pleaded that for the purpose of approval, he approached the Municipal Authorities and the Commissioner, Guntakal, and concerned authorities have approved the plan for the said site. The defendant No.2 further pleaded that he is having right and title over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has go