This is a second appeal against a judgment dismissing an appeal in a property suit. The appellant sought declaration and injunction, but lower courts found no title in his favor. This court found no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC and dismissed the appeal.
Second appeal dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 989 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2010, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No. 85 of 2009, filed by the appellant questioning the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, decreeing the suit O.S. No. 1161 of 2002, filed by the respondent for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal.
Though the appellant-defendant claimed that the respondent-plaintiff was claiming his property, the fact remains, the appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellantdefendant and the respondent-plaintiff, found that the defendant himself as D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted the property claimed by him in the written statement is different from that of the plaint schedule property. That Exs. A6 and A22-sale deeds filed by the respondent-plaintiff, show that the land claimed by the
appellant-defendant, is to the east side of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.00 purchased by one Gopala Naidu, while the land purchased by the respondent-plaintiff is within the said Acs.2.00, which is evident from Exs. A1 to A6. Though the appellant-defendant sought to trace his title through Leela Kumari and contended that ryotwari patta was granted in her favour by the Inam Tahsildar, the fact remains, both the Courts below, as evidenced by Ex. A28, found that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of Leela Kumari, from whom the appellant-defendant claims title, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, for
de novo enquiry. Thus the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.
Both the Courts below, based on Ex. A1-registered sale deed dated 31.12.1986, which is supported by other documentary evidence, namely Exs. A2 to A22-sale deeds, and endorsement and proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, which are marked as Exs. A26 and A28 and the oral evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6, who are the neighbouring owners of the respondent-plaintiff, concurrently found and held that the respondent-plaintiff established that he had purchased the suit schedule property and traced his title thereto. That the respondent, being the owner of the suit schedule property, made constructions therein to protect it, and since he proved his
title to the suit schedule property, he is entitled to grant of declaration and injunction as prayed for.
The findings recorded by the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. This apart, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, warranting its admission or interference by this Court with the judgment under appeal, in exercise of its power under Section 100 C.P.C.
The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
25th November, 2011. IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal was maintainable in view of the absence of a substantial question of law?
Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding ownership of the suit schedule property require interference?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant-Defendant
Respondent-Plaintiff
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
