The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Second Appeal No.390 of 2025

Judgment:

Heard Sri Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Rama Sharabna Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem in A.S.No.33 of 2025 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in O.S.No.169 of 2015.

3. Initially, suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem seeking declaration of his possessory title and for consequential recovery of possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act and for arrears of damages and future damages. The said suit was partly decreed declaring the possessory title of respondent with a direction to the appellants to vacate the suit schedule property within 3 months from the date of judgment. The relief with respect to past and future damages has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants filed preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.33 of 2024 and said appeal has been dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred by raising Eight (8) substantial questions of law.

4. While arguing about the maintainability, the learned counsel for the appellants raised the following 2^nd substantial question of law:

“Whether a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable without the plaintiff proving continuous, uninterrupted, hostile possession over the suit schedule property for the statutory period?”

5. No emphasis is made on any of the remaining substantial questions of law. On the above issue, there was heated discussion about whether declaration of possessory title can be sought and, in such scenario, there can be an occasion for adverse possession by the appellant. It is admitted by both the parties that the land in question was Government land which was occupied decades ago by the respondent and appellant No.1. There is no title to the land except right over said land on account of long standing possession. For making any claim of adverse possession, the title of the owner has to be acknowledged. In the instant case, there is no title for the respondent for the same to be acknowledged by the appellants before claiming adverse possession. Be that as it may, the suit was filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act alleging dispossession and seeking relief of declaration of possessory title and recovery of possession. As per Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, no appeal or review is maintainable against any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under said section. Relevant provision is extracted and produced below:

6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. —

1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.

2) No suit under this section shall be brought—

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government.

3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.

6. The above Section 6(3) of Specific Relief Act clearly stipulates that neither an appeal nor a review is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.169 of 2015. The only remedy available