THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and SECOND APPEAL No.253 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2024 in A.S.No.50 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar (‘first appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2023 in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jedcherla (‘trial Court’), wherein the suit files seeking perpetual injunction by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants has been dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the present appeal is preferred to condone delay of 234 days in filing of the Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is claiming to be absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.180/EE2 and 180/E/E total admeasuring Ac.1-14 guntas situated at Tatikonda Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). The appellant purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed document bearing No.2841/2012 dated 18.04.2012 from original owners. Thereafter, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the appellant and he was issued pattedar passbook and title deed. Ever since, he is in peaceful possession by cultivating the said land. It is the case of the appellant that one T. Dasaratha Ramulu was original owner and pattedar of land in Sy.No.180 with an extent of Ac.12-21 guntas. Out of said land, Ac.4-00 guntas was sold in favour of one Bhuthanna. The said Bhuthanna had two sons and one daughter and he registered the said land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in favour of his two sons and son-in-law (respondent No.1) through registered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 dated 22.04.1981 and delivered possession. Subsequently, there was settlement between the sons and son- in-law (respondent No.1) of Bhuthanna, wherein Bhuthanna gave land in Sy.No.195 to his daughter and son-in-law (respondent No.1) and the entire land in Sy.No.180 was given to his two sons i.e., Ponemoni Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu i.e., Ac.2-00 guntas each. Accordingly, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The said Ponemoni Venkataiah and Ponemoni Anjaneyulu sold land to an extent of Ac.0-37 guntas each to the appellant for valid sale consideration under registered sale deed. At this juncture, the respondents, who are no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.180, have interfered with peaceful possession of the appellant leading to filing of the suit.

4. Respondent No.1 opposed the suit claim stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1 jointly under registered sale deed document bearing No.1305/1981 and the Ac.4-00 guntas of land is in their joint possession. Respondent No.1 has 1/3^rd share in Ac.4-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.180. The said land was not partitioned by metes and bounds between the owners i.e., Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1. The identity of land to the extent of Ac.1-14 guntas out of Ac.4-00 guntas is not identifiable and in case the suit is decreed there is every possibility of dispossession of respondent No.1 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined Ponemoni Anjaneyulu as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-18 were got marked to prove the ownership and possession. Respondents got examined D.Ws.1 to

3 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

6. Upon examining the evidence adduced on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that under Ex.B-1 land in Sy.No.180 to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas was purchased jointly by Ponemoni Venkataiah, Ponemoni Anjaneyulu and respondent No.1 and as against this evidence there is no