IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

22^nd JANUARY, 2026 C.M.A No. 427 of 2024 Between:

Mr. Jukannagari Narender Reddy, Hyderabad.

…Appellant AND Mr. Jukannagari Ravinder Reddy, Medak and others.

…Respondents C.M.A No. 438 of 2024 Between:

Mr. Jukannagari Narender Reddy, Hyderabad.

…Appellant AND Mr. Jukkanagari Surender Reddy, Medak and others.

…Respondents C.M.A No. 460 of 2024 Between:

Mr. Jukannagari Narender Reddy, Hyderabad.

…Appellant AND Mr. Jukkanagari Surender Reddy, Medak and others.

…Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The C.M.A. Nos.427, 438 and 460 of 2024 are preferred aggrieved by the judgments and decrees dated 23.01.2024 passed in A.S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2015 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sanga Reddy (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’). The First Appellate Court allowed A.S. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015 setting aside the common judgments and decrees in O.S. Nos. 83 of 2007 and 68 of 2011 and remanded the O.S. Nos. 83 of 2007 and 68 of 2011 to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred.

3. Both the learned counsel have dealt with the facts of the case and the merits of their respective case. However, their arguments were focused on whether or not the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the matters back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on merits. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to venture into both the facts as well as merits of the respective cases. The only point for consideration is whether or not remanding the matters to the Trial Court for fresh disposal is justified.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the First Appellate Court has discussed the entire facts as well as merits of the case and therefore, ought to have pronounced a judgment on merits. Whereas, by remanding the matter, the First Appellate Court has given an opportunity to the respondents to fill in lacuna and thereby causing prejudice to the interest of the appellant.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the First Appellate Court deemed that there is a need for adducing documentary evidence with respect to age of appellant/defendant No.2 to prove his claim of purchasing the suit schedule property. Since there was no evidence with respect to age of defendant No.2 when he allegedly purchased the suit schedule property, issue No.2 in O.S. Nos. 83 of 2007 and 68 of 2011 is framed and the matter was remanded back for leading evidence on said issue. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the respondents that the First Appellate Court has discussed the judgment of the Trial Court only to the extent of issues where additional evidence is required for just adjudication of the case but has not given a finding on any of the issues.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 68 of 2011 for perpetual injunction only, whereas, respondent No.1 in C.M.A. No. 427 of 2024 has filed a suit in O.S. No. 83 of 2007 for declaration of title and therefore, both the parties ought to have led evidence in support of their respective cases.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in case there was deficiency with respect to the evidence led by the appellant/defendant No.2 in a suit for declaration of title, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents herein to strengthen their case.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff has to stand and fall on the strength of his own case. Therefore, even in case the evidence is lacking with respect to age of appellant/defendant No.2 and his claim of purchasing the suit schedule property on his own, the evidence with r