Hearing a second appeal challenging the first appellate court's reversal of a trial court decree in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The High Court Bench held that the appeal raised questions of fact and no substantial question of law was involved.
Second Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
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 HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER
SECOND APPEAL No.5 8 5 OF 2 0 0 0
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’), is filed by the appellant/ plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 01.04.2000, rendered in A.S.No.305 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Dr.SA,J
2
property is situated in a slum area and slum certificate was also issued to that effect by the authorities concerned.
The defendant is younger brother of husband of the plaintiff. On 10.03.1988, the defendant requested the plaintiff and her husband to permit him to stay in a room of their house on rent till he secures an accommodation. The defendant permanently occupied the said property with a mala fide intention. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the room. The defendant sent reply notice with all false allegations stating that he is residing in house bearing No.3-2-844/ 1/ A, which belongs to him and that he is not residing in the house bearing No.3-2-844/ 1. The defendant has no title over the subject property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid Suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession from the defendant and for costs.
Dr.SA,J S.A.No.585_2000
3
several years. The hut of Lingaiah was given House No.3-2844/ 1/ A, whereas the hut of Kistaiah was given House No.3-2844/ 1. The mother of K. Rajaiah/ husband of the plaintiff and the defendant, along with her children, came to Hyderabad and stayed with her brothers Lingaiah and Kistaiah. Kistaiah had given his daughter i.e., the plaintiff to K.Rajaiah and also a portion of the house bearing No.3-2-844/ 1, consists of one room which was in his occupation, and now in occupation of the plaintiff and her husband. Lingaiah sold his house bearing No.32-844/ 1/ A to the defendant on 13.11.1989 for a consideration of Rs.800/ - and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said house as absolute owner. The defendant admitted the receipt of notices issued on behalf of the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff and her husband, having kept quiet for several years, filed the present Suit with false allegations to grab the subject property.
“ 1 . W h et h er t h e plain t iff is en t it led for declar at ion an d possession of t h e su it h ou se?
3 . Relief t o w h at ex t en t ?”
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
4
defendant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.
“ 1 . W h et h er t h e r espon den t / plain t iff is en t it led for declar at ion of h er t it le t o t h e su it pr oper t y an d for possession of t h e sam e?
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
5
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
6
appellate Court denied the title and possession of the appellant/ plaintiff over the disputed property; that the substantial question relates to ExA.1 in this case; that the first appellate Court disbelieved Ex.A.1, registered sale deed, dated 19.07.1991, and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 15.10.1996, in O.S.No.4958 of 1992 passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
7
purchased the said site. It is also the case of the appellant/ plaintiff that she owned lands and thereafter purchased the disputed property along with some other adjoining properties. There is no single document to substantiate the same. After death of her father-in-law, her husband acquired the same. Thereafter, the same was bequeathed to the appellant/ plaintiff herein. But, there is no single document to establish the title as set up by the appellant/ plaintiff. Ex.A.1 is a registered sale deed in between the appellant/ plaintiff and her husband. Even there are no revenue records from the municipality concerned to show the possession of the appellant/ plaintiff or her predecessor-in-title at any point of time. Further, there is no certificate showing the ownership of the appellant/ plaintiff and her husband etc. The flow of title, as contended by the appellant/ plaintiff, has not been established. Ex.A.1 is not at all helpful to the appellant/ plaintiff to establish her ownership over the property. The first appellate Court had appreciated all the facts and circumstances in a right perspective.
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
8
procedure, requiring interference in a Second Appeal. The findings of the first appellate Court are not perverse. There is nothing to take a different view. The first appellate Court has neither overlooked the admissible evidence nor acted upon inadmissible evidence. After careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and the contentions, this Court finds that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in this Second Appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
APRI L 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 YVL
Dr.SA,J
S.A.No.585_2000
9
THE HON'BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER
SECOND APPEAL No.5 8 5 OF 2 0 0 0
Dat e:2 2 .0 4 .2 0 1 9
YVL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC raises a substantial question of law regarding the title and possession of the suit schedule property.
Whether the findings of the first appellate court regarding the rejection of the plaintiff's registered deed and title can be said to be perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Plaintiff
Defendant
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
