HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL NO.239 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2024 in A.S.No.92 of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.2 and the respondents herein are the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts of the case in brief, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction contending that the plaintiff No.1 was the owner and possessor of the open plot admeasuring 117.7 square yards in Sy.No.96/2 situated at Lingapur Grama Panchayat, Kamareddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit plot’) having purchased the same from one Chikoti Rajesham through a registered sale deed vide document No.2141/2001 dated 15.06.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.12,000/-; that the vendor of the plaintiff No.1 vide purchased the suit plot from Linga Veerasham document No.2704/1985 dated 10.07.1985; that said Linga Veerasham purchased the suit plot from the defendant No.2-Kasarla Ramulu vide through a registered sale deed document No.1722/1984 dated 19.06.1984 and the defendant No.2 is the father of defendant No.1; that plaintiff No.1 came to know that defendant No.2 has created and fabricated a gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.1 with an intention to grab the suit plot; that defendants came to the suit plot on 22.01.2014 and tried to remove the boundary stones and the plaintiffs resisted them with the help of neighbours. Hence, the suit.

4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died and his legal representatives i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record. 5. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and further averred that the suit plot is the part of ancestral property of the defendant No.2 and the same was made into house site plots; that out of love and affection, defendant No.2 executed a gift deed dated 13.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of Southern side of half portion of open plot No.8 and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit plot and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and averred that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit plot by virtue of gift deed dated 13.12.2011 executed by the defendant No.2; that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit plot?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction ?

3) To what relief ?

On 24.08.2019 after hearing the parties, the following additional issues were framed.

1) Whether the defendant no.2 executed registered sale deed Doc.No.1722/1984 dated 19.06.1984 in favour of Linga Veerasham who in turn sold the same to plaintiff’s vendor vide Chekoti Rajesham s/o. Balaiah registered sale deed Doc.No.2704/1985 dated 10.07.1985 ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare him as owner of the suit schedule land ?

3) Whether the defendant No.2 executed the gift deed validly in favour of the defendant No.1 during the subsisting of the registered sale deed and the said gift deed Doc.No.7229/2011 dated 12.12.2011 validly confer the title on the defendant No.2 ?

8. During the trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, Pws.1 to 3 were examined, Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 5 were marked and Ex.B1 to B6 were marked.

9. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and docu