Dismissed

Sura Venkata Ramanamma v. Soda Venkateswara Achari

Telangana HC2 Dec 2014SA/1464/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a second appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging a first appeal decree. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish title and possession within the described boundaries, citing boundary inconsistencies and evidence supporting the defendants' possession. No interference with fact findings on appeal was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Sura Venkata Ramanamma Vs Soda Venkateswara Achari — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No.1464 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006 passed in A.S. No.30 of 2006 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel of Kadapa whereby the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge while allowing the said First Appeal of the defendants had set aside the decree and judgment dated 17.02.2005 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Badvel in O.S. No.109/2000 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after removing the structures in the said property and for perpetual injunction.

¶5

2. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law mentioned in the grounds nos.2 to 6 of the Memorandum of Objections and the said substantial questions of law

¶6

are as under:

¶7

(1) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, which are contrary to the public documents furnished by the Government authorities, in respect of the situation of the Suit Schedule Property and the Survey Number, can be sustained?

¶8

(2) Whether the approach of the Lower Appellate Court in first reaching conclusions and thereafter construing the evidence to suit and support such conclusions can be sustained?

¶9

(3) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, on the evidence adduced by the Respondents herein, which are of a highly dubious and doubtful nature, can be sustained?

¶10

(4) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding in favour of the Respondents herein based on flimsy evidence, which is demonstrably contrived and manufactured for the purposes of the case?

¶11

(5) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in not acting upon the independent evidence of Government authorities in the form of public documents, on the ground that such authorities were not examined, in violation of the provisions of the Evidence Act?

¶12

3. A reading of the substantial questions of law would show that the substantial questions raised in the grounds of appeal are in regard to the non-

¶13

consideration of the material evidence viz., the independent evidence in the form of public documents furnished by the Government authorities in respect of the situation and Survey Number of the plaint schedule property; and improper and undue reliance on the evidence adduced by the defendants, which is dubious/doubtful, flimsy/weak, contrived/artificial and manufactured for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the sum and substance is as to whether there is any illegality or irregularity or impropriety or perversity in appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the Court below and, if so, whether the judgment impugned calls for interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

4. In this Second Appeal, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as arrayed in the suit, for convenience and clarity.

¶15

5. To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer to, in brief, the pleadings of both the parties.

¶16

6. The averments in the amended copy of the plaint, in brief, are as follows: ‘The plaintiff had purchased the plaint schedule property viz., Ac.0.04 cents in Survey No.450/1 of Somireddypalli village fields of Brahmamagiri Mattam Mandal from Lekkala Ramanareddy by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1999. The possession of the said property was delivered by the vendor to the plaintiff on the said date. Ever since that date, the plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. The said property is marked as ‘ABC’ in the plaint plan. In fact, the vendor of the plaintiff had purchased on 22.08.1998 Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No.450/1 and had sold from out of the said extent, the before mentioned extent to the plaintiff as stated above. The vendor of the plaintiff had constructed a school by name ‘Deepthi Residential School’ in his site. There used to be old dilapidated kottam walls without roof in the plaint schedule site. On 20.04.2000, the plaintiff had placed wooden poles in the said site for placing thatched roof over the said old walls. Earlier in the month of March 2000, the defendants who are brothers and are residents of

¶17

B.Mattam had approached the plaintiff and had requested him to sell the plaint schedule site to them. However, the plaintiff had refused to do so. Bearing grudge, the defendants had started canvassing in the village from 22.04.2000 onwards that they will not allow the plaintiff to place the thatched roof over the dilapidated walls of the old kottam in the plaint schedule site. Having come to know of their evil design, the plaintiff had convened a Panchayat on 23.04.2000 through the village elders. However, the same was invain. The plaintiff is a law abiding citizen. Having no option, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.’

¶18

6. (a) It is pertinent to note at this stage that the plaintiff had originally filed the suit for perpetual injunction. However, as per orders dated 23.07.2002 of the trial Court in I.A. No.251/2002, the plaintiff had amended his plaint and sought the relief of declaration of title and recovery of vacant possession by removing the structures in the plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction and for costs.

¶19

7. The second defendant had adopted the defence of the first defendant. The averments in the written statement and additional written statement of the first defendant, in brief, are as follows: ‘The material allegations in the plaint are false. The plaintiff had purchased a site may be true but the averments that the plaintiff had purchased Ac.0.04 cents of site i.e., the plaint schedule site under a registered sale deed and that she was put in possession of the said property and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights are all false. Her vendor had purchased Ac.0.25 cents in Survey No.450/1 may be true. It is also true that the vendor of the plaintiff had constructed a school in his site. The further allegation that there is an old kottam with walls and without roof in the plaint schedule site is false. The other allegations in regard to the plaintiff erecting poles to lay a roof on the old walls of the kottam and that the defendants had earlier approached the plaintiff with a request to sell the plaint schedule site to them and that the plaintiff had refused to do so and that on that the defendants had canvassed in the village as alleged in the plaint and that the Panchayat got

¶20

convened by the plaintiff was of no avail are all false. The site in which the kottam is in existence is a Government waste land and earlier five or six huts in addition to the kottam were constructed in the plaint schedule site by the defendants and they have been residing there itself since more than 15 years. The defendants who are carpenters by profession and are landless poor persons had occupied the plaint schedule site. On the South of the three ankanams kottam, in the plaint schedule site, there is a wall running from East to West as shown in the plan filed by the defendants. The said wall starts from Survey stone situate on the South West corner of the 3 ankanams kottam. That wall bifurcates the patta site and the poramboke site where the defendants are living. So, the site said to have been purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff is situate to the South of the said wall running from West to East. The site situate to the North of the said wall is Government poramboke site and in that site the defendants are living having constructed the 3 ankanams kottam thereon. The Rasta leading to the Hospital is situate to the North of the Kottam of the defendants. The defendants are living in the said kottam in the plaint schedule site openly, uninterruptedly and to the knowledge of one and all, including the plaintiff and her predecessor in title. Even if the plaintiff’s claim that she had purchased the plaint schedule site is to be presumed to be true, the plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable as the defendants are enjoying the property and had perfected their title by adverse possession. The defendants are keeping their machinery related to carpentry work in the plaint schedule site and had also obtained electricity service connection for the same. The plaintiff is neither having title nor possession at any point of time over the plaint schedule site. The kottam is in existence in Government waste land for more than 14 years prior to the filing of the suit and the defendants are residing therein for more than the statutory period. The Government site is also a part and parcel of the plaint schedule site. The Mandal Revenue Officer, after taking into consideration the fact that the defendants are residing in the plaint schedule site continuously and uninterruptedly, had granted a patta in the name of the mother of the defendants. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.’

¶21

8. Taking into consideration the above pleadings, the trial Court had

¶22

framed the following issues and additional issues for trial:

¶23

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶24

(2) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

¶25

(3) Whether the suit for mere injunction without seeking declaration of title to the plaint schedule property is maintainable?

¶26

(4) To what relief?

¶27

Additional issues dated 13.10.2003

¶28

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction?

¶29

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession? Additional Issue No.3 dated 16.02.2005

¶30

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the suit property as sought by him?

¶31

9. During the course of trial, the plaintiff and her supporting witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on her side. The second defendant and the supporting witnesses of the defendants were examined as DWs 1 to 5 and exhibits B1 to B20 were marked on their side. The Commissioner’s report, plan and further report of the Commissioner and Mandal Surveyor’s plan were exhibited as C1 to C4. On merits, the trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. As already noted, the Court of First Appeal having reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff while allowing the appeal of the defendants.

¶32

10. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. Though sufficient opportunities were given, there was no representation for the defendants/respondents and no submissions were made on their sides and hence, it was treated that there are no submissions to be made on behalf of the defendants/respondents. However, having gone through the record, this Court felt that it is in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the defendants/respondents and therefore, had directed for listing the Second Appeal for further hearing; and on such listing, the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents made submissions on their behalf. Further submissions/reply submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant were also heard. I have carefully perused the material record. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial

¶33

Court had passed a well considered judgment and that the Court below had unnecessarily interfered with such a well considered judgment by not properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and that the Court below had failed to properly appreciate the public documents on record and had given credence to flimsy, dubious, doubtful, demonstrably contrived and manufactured evidence of the defendants and had therefore, arrived at incorrect findings and hence, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants having read portions of the judgments of the Courts below and having placed reliance on the documentary evidence and the incorrect description of the boundaries in the schedule of the plaint had submitted that the judgment of the trial Court, which is erroneous, was rightly set aside by the Court of First Appeal and that the well considered judgment of the Court of First Appeal based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence does not call for interference and that all the substantial questions raised are questions of fact and that the said questions being not substantial questions of law, there is no merit in this Second Apepal and that the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

11. A careful analysis of the pleadings and evidence would show that the plaintiff is claiming title to the plaint schedule property and also the other reliefs based on exhibit A1 registered sale deed dated 30.09.1999 executed in favour of the plaintiff by her vendor Ramana Reddy and exhibit A3, the certified copy of the title deed of her vendor besides exhibits A4 and A5, the certified copies of the Field plans relating to fields in Survey Nos.455/2 and 450 respectively. It is pertinent to note that as per the recitals in exhibit A1– registered sale deed, the boundaries of the plaint schedule property are as follows: East and South: Remaining site of the vendor; West: Mallepalle and B.Matham Road; North: Road leading to Government Hospital. Exhibit A2Plaint Plan in which the plaint schedule property is marked as ‘ABC’ would make it apparent that the plaint schedule site is a triangular piece of site. As per exhibit A2 plan filed by the plaintiff, the boundaries of the plaint schedule ‘ABC’ marked triangular site are as follows: West: Mallepalle and B.Matham

¶35

Road; South: Rastha leading to school; North: Government waste land. On the Eastern side, the property being a triangular piece of land it can be said there is no definite property of a third party as a boundary. The Western boundary in the plan is tallying with the Western boundary in exhibit A1 sale deed of the plaintiff. The Southern boundary is also tallying as in the plaint schedule it is mentioned as ‘remaining site of the vendor’, whereas in the plan it is shown as ‘Rastha leading to school’ as the fact remains that the vendor has constructed a school in his remaining site. However, the Eastern boundary in the plan does not tally with the Eastern boundary in the plaint schedule and in exhibit A1. Further, the Northern boundary in the plaint schedule and exhibit A1 sale deed is ‘Road leading to government hospital’, whereas in the plain under exhibit A2 the Northern boundary is ‘Government waste land’. Therefore, the Northern boundary in exhibit A2 plan on which the plaintiff is placing reliance is not tallying with the Northern boundary mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and also her exhibit A1 sale deed. Thus, from the plaintiff’s own version as is evident from exhibit A2 plan it is clear that the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule triangular site is not ‘Rastha leading to hospital’ but in fact, it is ‘Government waste land’. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that there are old dilapidated Kottam walls without roof in the suit site and that the plaintiff had placed wooden poles on 20.04.2000 for laying thatched roof over the old walls of the kottam. In this backdrop of undisputed case and established facts, the defence of the defendants, which is two fold, needs careful examination. In the first place they contend that the site, with the Kottam and 5 or 6 huts constructed by them, is in their possession since 14 years prior to the suit and that they are residing there itself for more than the statutory period and that the said property is a Government poramboke and that recognising the long possession, the M.R.O concerned had granted a patta in respect of the said property in favour of the mother of the defendants and that a wall, which is running from East to West, bifurcates the patta site and the poramboke site, where the defendants are living and that whatever site that was purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff is situated to the South of the said wall running from West to East and that the site situate to the North of the said wall is

¶36

Government poramboke site in which the defendants are living having constructed three ankanams kottam therein, and that the Rastha leading to the hospital is situate to the North of the Kottam of the defendants and that the defendants are living in the kottam constructed in the suit site openly uninterruptedly and to the knowledge of every body including the plaintiff and her predecessor in title. In the second place the defendants’ alternate contention is that even if it is to be presumed that the plaintiff had purchased the plaint schedule site, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed as the defendants by being in open, uninterrupted and continuous possession of the said property for over the statutory period to the knowledge of one and all, including the plaintiff and her predecessor in interest, had perfected their title to the property in their occupation by adverse possession. In support of their defence, the defendants had relied upon the following exhibits: (i) B1 to B6 are the house tax receipts of the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000; the said tax receipts bear door number 7/190; (ii) B18 and B19 are the entries in exhibits B7 and B8 i.e., copies of voters lists; the same show that the defendants are residents of a house bearing door No.7/190; (iii) B9 to B17 are electricity consumption receipts issued during the years 1998, 1999 and 2000; they all contain the service connection number 763; (iv) B20 is the house tax demand notice. Apart from the documents exhibited in ‘A’ and ‘B’ series, there are also further documents viz., the exhibit X1, the attested copy of layout of field No.455/4, the exhibits X2 and X3, the attested copies of D.K.T.Pattas in the names of the S.Tirumalamma and S.Sanjamma besides the exhibits in ‘C’ series viz., Commissioner’s reports and plan (exhibits C1, C2 and C3) and also Mandal Surveyor’s Plan (exhibit C4).

¶37

12. I have once again carefully gone through the pleadings and the entire oral and documentary evidence, keeping in view what has been analytically examined and discussed supra. Both the parties asserted their respective versions in the oral evidence. In a case of this nature, where title to immoveable property is in issue, oral assertions are of no significance and the documentary evidence assumes significance. On a detailed and vigilant examination of the facts, the evidence and the submissions, this Court is of

¶38

the considered view that the plaintiff had failed to establish her title and possession as on the date of the suit in respect of the plaint schedule site within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The reasons for the said conclusion may be summed up as follows:

¶39

Firstly, as already noted the plaint schedule site is a triangular piece of land even as per the case of the plaintiff and the said fact is evident from exhibit A2 plan. In the plaint and in the exhibit A1 sale deed of the plaintiff, the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule property was mentioned as ‘Rastha leading to hospital’, but, exhibit A2 plan on which the plaintiff is relying, on a careful perusal would show that the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule site is ‘Government waste land’. The Rastha leading to the hospital is situate to the further North of the said Government waste land. To be précise, the Government waste land is situate between the Rastha leading to the hospital and the triangular piece of site being claimed by the plaintiff, and which is marked as ‘ABC’ in exhibit A2 plan. Thus, even according to the case of the plaintiff, the Government waste land on the North is not part of the plaint schedule site. However, if the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed as prayed for, the plaintiff would become entitled to Government waste land on the North of the ‘ABC’ marked site though it is not the property of the plaintiff. On this ground alone, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration of title in respect of the entire property within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. Thus, in view of the wrong description of the Northern boundary in the schedule of the plaint which is contrary to the situation on land, the plaintiff must be non-suited.

¶40

Secondly, the plaintiff’s documents and pleadings on a perusal would show that the plaint schedule site is in survey No.450/1. The plaintiff had filed field plans of survey Nos.455/2 and 450. A perusal of exhibit A4 – Field Plan of survey No.455/2 would show that there is a triangular piece of land in that Field Plan with serial number 17. Be that as it may, exhibit A5 Field Plan would show that the total extent of land in Survey No.450/1 is Ac.7.51 cents and that the extent of the land in Survey No.450/2 is Ac.0.76 cents. Therefore, the total extent of Survey No.450 is Ac.8.27 cents is evident from exhibit A5 Field Plan. However, the Field Plan of Survey No.450 does not

¶41

show the sub-divisions of the said survey number in the said plan. Nonetheless, exhibit X1 is the copy of Field Plan of Survey No.455/4 and it shows that two plots viz., Plot Nos.17 and 18 are new plots. Exhibits X2 and X3 are the true copies of the Pattas granted by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the mother and wife of the first defendant in respect of the plots Nos.17 and 18 in Survey No.455/4 and as already noted the Plot No.17 is a triangular piece of land. The extent of the said plot numbers 17 and 18 is Ac.0.02 cents each. The boundaries of the said Plot No.17 as mentioned in exhibit X2 patta are – North: Road; East: Plot No.18; South: Survey No.450/1; and West: Main road. Similarly, the boundaries of the said plot No.18 as mentioned in exhibit X3 patta are – North: Road, East: Vacant site; South: Survey No.450/1; and West: Plot No.17. Thus, for these plots 17 and 18 in respect of which pattas were granted to the Wife and mother of the first defendant, the Southern boundary is survey No.450/1 which is the survey number of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, to the North of survey No.450/1 the said plot numbers 17 and 18 allotted by way of pattas to the Wife and mother of the first defendant are situate. However, the claim of the plaintiff is that the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is ‘Rastha leading to hospital’. Therefore, it is evident that in the plaint schedule the Northern boundary is wrongly described as ‘Rastha leading to hospital’, though in fact the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is ‘Government waste land’ or the plots of Patta holders in survey No.455/4. No explanation is forthcoming in regard to the wrong description of the Northern boundary in the schedule of the plaint. There is no consistency even in the case of the plaintiff. In the plaint schedule, the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule site is shown as ‘Rastha leading to hospital’. Whereas in the plaint plan marked as exhibit A2 the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule site is shown as ‘Government waste land’.

¶42

Thirdly, the plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint that there are old dilapidated Kottam walls without roof in the suit site and that the plaintiff had placed wooden poles on 20.04.2000 for laying thatched roof over the old walls of the kottam. On the other hand, the defence of the defendants as stated in their written statement filed in June 2001 is this: ‘It is submitted that

¶43

the site where the Kottam is in existence is a Government waste land and previously 5 or 6 more huts in addition to the Kottam constructed in the suit site by the defendants, existed. It is only the defendants who constructed the hut and have been residing there itself since more than 15 years. The defendants are carpenters by profession and as such they had occupied the suit site being houseless persons. On the South of the 3 ankanams Kottam in the suit site, there is a wall running from East to West. There existed a survey stone on the South Western corner of the 3 ankanams kottam. The wall mentioned above starts from the survey stone and runs from East to West. It is submitted that this wall running from East to West bifurcates patta site and the poramboke site where the defendants are living. So whatever is purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff is situated to the South of the said wall running from West to East. The site situated to the North of the said wall is Government poramboke site in which the defendants are living having constructed the 3 ankanams kottam therein. The Rastha leading to the hospital is situate to the North of the kottam of the defendants.’ The defence is extracted for emphasis and to place on record the exact defence of the defendants. Thus, both the parties are claiming possession of the kottam which is admittedly in the disputed site. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the reports of the Advocate Commissioner. Exhibit C1 is the report with plan – C2 of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has noted the door number of the kottam as 1/190 and also the electricity service connection to the hut, with number 763. In his report, he marked the kottam as ‘ABCD’ and adjacent to the kottam he had also noted the existence of a bathroom on the East. He further noted that some planks and a wood trimming machine are available in the site. He had noted the existence of Rastha leading to Government hospital to the further North of the kottam. He had also noted the existence of a dilapidated wall which is of not uniform height but of a length of about 35 to 40 feet running from East to West. The kottam is situated to the North of the said dilapidated wall. To the South of the said wall, he had noted the existence of a building belonging to the plaintiff and to the further South of the said building under construction he had noted the existence of the ‘Deepthi Residential School’. The first report and plan (exhibits C1 and C2)

¶44

are filed by the Commissioner after he had visited the property on 01.05.2000. The suit was filed on 24.04.2000. Thus, the features noted by the Advocate Commissioner in his said report and plan lend support to the defence of the defendants and go contrary to the case of the plaintiff. The same Commissioner who was re-entrusted with the warrant of commission had again visited the property on 25.06.2000 and had filed further report and plan (exhibits C4 and C5) and by that time of his second visit, the roof of the kottam was constructed and the defendants are living in the said kottam. Except that improvement, he did not find any changes in the physical features of the property, during his second visit. The plaintiff did not file any house tax receipts. Whereas the defendants have filed house tax receipts though with door number 7/190, whereas the Commissioner has noted the door number of the hut in the disputed site as 1/190. The contention of the defendants is that the Commissioner might have noted the door number incorrectly as 1/190 either due to a mistake or due to wearing away of digit ‘7’ due to exposure to Sun and Rain over a period of time and its appearance as ‘1’ for the said reason. However, no objections are filed to the report of the Commissioner is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. It is relevant to note that PW1 had deposed that she does not know whether door number was given to the kottam prior to filing of the suit. In the voters list of the Assembly Constituency No.156 of Maidukur village, the defendants are shown to be residents of door No.7/190 as is evident from exhibits B18 and B19, which are entries in exhibits B7 and B8, the copies of voters’ lists of the year 1999. Be that as it may, even though objections are filed by the plaintiff to the Commissioner’s report, the PW1 did not state anything in her evidence against the report of the Commissioner and the Commissioner was not cross examined by calling him as a witness of the Court. PW1 had deposed that the defendants had obtained the electricity service connection to the kottam just before the inspection of the Commissioner. Further, the Commissioner has also noted that there is an electricity service connection with No.763. It is important to note that the defendants had pleaded in their written statement filed in June 2001 that they

¶45

have taken electricity connection and that they have kept machinery for carpentry work in the disputed site and that they are in possession of the same. The defendants had filed and exhibited B9 to B17, which are electricity consumption receipts issued during the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, which also contain the service connection number 763. Therefore, the said documents show, in the considered view of this Court, the possession of the defendants over the disputed property even by the year 1998 i.e., even prior to filing of the suit, which is filed in June 2000. Though the Survey number in the pattas under exhibits X2 and X3 is different and even if the said pattas are kept out of consideration for the said reason and also for the reason that they are issued subsequent to the filing of the suit, the other evidence on record is sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff. Be it noted that the documents in exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ series on record including exhibits X1 to X3 and C1 to C4 on a harmonious consideration probablize the defence and go to show that the said documents do not support the case of the plaintiff in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the contentions which are part of the substantial questions and the contentions advanced before this Court on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant do not stand the test of scrutiny and are therefore, liable for rejection being devoid of merit.

¶46

Lastly, on an independent scrutiny of the facts and the appreciation of the evidence in juxtaposition with the facts, this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety or perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the Court below. After giving earnest consideration to the facts, the evidence (both oral and documentary) and the submissions, this Court is satisfied that the findings of the Court below need not be disturbed.

¶47

To sum up, it is to be noted that the law is well settled that in a suit for declaration of title, the legal burden is on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has to succeed on her own strength and not on the weakness of the defendants, if any. It is also well settled that in a Second Appeal the jurisdiction of this Court is confined only to such appeals, which involve substantial question of law, and that Section 100 of the Code does not confer any jurisdiction on this Court to interfere with questions of fact.

¶48

13. In this setting of the facts and the evidence, and in the light of the discussion coupled with reasons, this Court is in agreement with the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff could not establish title to the plaint schedule property as described in the schedule of the plaint and also her possession as on the date of the suit. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the contentions of the plaintiff merit consideration and that the substantial questions raised have no substance and that the Second Appeal, which is devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

14. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶51

____________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶52

Date: 02.12.2014 MVA

Sura Venkata Ramanamma v. Soda Venkateswara Achari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sura Venkata Ramanamma v. Soda Venkateswara Achari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miryalkar Gandhi Vs Miryalkar Omprakash

Miryalkar Gandhi Vs Miryalkar Omprakash

Kanthilal Chandulal Khatri, Vs C.Vittal Rao

Kavvampelli Mallesham Alias Mallaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakne Shobha, Vs Kanke Laxmikanth