Dismissed

A Srilatha v. K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022SA/878/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the appellant challenging the lower appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decree. The High Court held there was no perversity in the findings regarding commission agent evidence and evidence of possession.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were confirmed with no order as to costs.

A Srilatha Vs K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶6

SECOND APP EAL NO :878 0F²⁰¹⁷

¶7

Appeal under Section¹⁰⁰ of^{Codeof CivilProcedure aggrievedby the} Judgment and decree daled^{18112t20'12 in AS Nb.3S6/2011 on the file of the courl} of the lll Additional^{District Judge,(FastTrack Court) Ranga Reddy District preferred} against the order dated^{1ol1ot2o11 in os No.1929 of 2OO7on the file of the court of} the Vlll Additional Senior^{CivilJudge, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶8

Setween:

¶9

1 A. SRILATHA, W/o A Venkat^{Reddy, aged about 34 yeqrs, Occ: House Wife,} Rlo. rtrt No. SD-205, H.No.^{8-1-32-911, Anand Vihar,Tolichowki, Hyderabad} Now residing at Kukaipally,^{Hyderabad. (rep.by her GPA holder Sri. A.Venkat} Reddv) ...A''ELLANT/ RES,.NDENT/^pLAtNTtFF

¶10

AND

¶11

K. CHANDRA PRAKASH^{RAO, S/o. NarsimhaRao,aged about 80 years,} Occ: Retired Employee,^{FVo. H.no. 11-7-205,(Old 11-7-131} ),^{Hilda Colony'} Saroornaoar. Hvderabad^- 500^035,

¶12

V.Ganesh", S7o.'Radha Kishan^{Rao, aged about 53 years, Occ:Advocate,R/o'} 1 3-4-22, Vaddiraj Colony,^Warangal.

¶13

V. Venkateswara Rao, S/o.^{RaleshwaraRao,aged about 55 years, Occ:} Advocate, Ryo. 3-4-756/A,^{Flat No. 501, Laxminarsimha Apartments,} Hyderabad

¶14

+. rul Raghunath Rao, S/o. Hanumanth^{Rao, (Qig-d)per LRs I to .14aged about} 64 yeirs, Occ: Business,^{Fl/o. H.No. 3-4-7561A, Flat No. 501, Laxminarsimha} Aoirtments.Barkatoura. Hvderabad.

¶15

s. ViSnirsn kumar, S/o Shankar^{Rao, aged about45years, Occ: Doctor. R/o.} H.No. 13-4-24, Patak^tvlahal Skeet,^Warangal.

¶16

M.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o.^{Buchi ReddyAg-edabout 52 years, Occ: Business,} FJo. 12-8-268, Ramlnapet,^{Hunter Road,} 'o^Warangal.

¶17

P. Amarnath, S/o. Veer6shalingam,^{Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business,RJo'} H.No. 9-8-39, Yella Bazar,^Warangal.

¶18

Smt. G. Lalithamma, W/o^{G. ChennaReddyaged about 59 yearsOcc} - - Housewife Fl/o H. No^2-4-107 ,^{Beerappagadda, Uppal Hyderabad-500039} (R8 is imoleaded as per Court Order daled 1211112021 in lANo.1 &2of 2021)

¶19

g. irt. Anasr-iya,. W/o. Lite N. Raghunath Rao, aged 77 years' Rl/o. H No. . 3-4-75814, Flat No.201 ,om Sri^{Swathi Avenue, Barkatpura, HyQeglg^d.} - -.

¶20

10.S Sushma, D/o. N. Raghunath^{Rao,aged57 years,Fl/o. H No 3-4-758lA,Flat} No.201 ,Om Sai Swathi Avenue, Barkatpura,^Hyderabad

¶21

P. Sandhya Rani,, D/o. N. Raghunath Rao,^{aged55 years,Rl/o.H No.}

¶22

3-4-7581A, Flat No.20'l ,Om Sai Swathi^{Avenue, Barkatpura,Hyderabad}

¶23

12.P. Sudha Rani, D/o. N. Raghunath Rao, aged^{55 years,Fyo. H No. 3-4-75814,} Flat No.201,Om Sai Swathi Avenue, Barkatpura,^Hyderabad.

¶24

'13.V. Pavani, D/o. N. Raghunath Rao, aged 49 years, Rl/o. H No.3-4-758/A, Flat No.201 ,Om Sai Swathi Avenue, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

¶25

14.N. Sunitha, D/o. N. Raghunath Rao, aged 46^years,Rl/o. H No. 3-4-758lA, Flat No.201, Om Sai Swathi Avenue, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. (Respondents NO.9 to 14 are brought on record as per LR of the deceased Respondent No.4, vide Court Order dated 0110712022 in lA No.1/202) ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS

¶26

SAMP. NO: 1730 OF 2017

¶27

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w. Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the High Court may} be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondents herein and their agents and henchmen from interfering with the^{peacefulpossession} and enjoyment of the suit schedule^property in suit OS No.1928/2007 filed on^{the file} of the Court of Vlll Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District during the^pendency of the SA

¶28

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY

¶29

The residential^plots No.474, admeasuring 177 Sq.yards &^plot No.475 admeasuring^'180.5 sq.yards., total admeasuring 357.5 sq.yards in Survey No.66/12, situated at Mansoorabad Village,^{Saroornagarlrlandal,} L,B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and bounded^by:

¶30

North: 40'Wife Road South. Neighbour's plots in Survey No.66/14 East : 30'Wide Road West . Plot No.476

¶31

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶32

Betwee n

¶33

Smt. G. Lalithamma, W/o G. Chenna Reddy aged about 59 years Occ Housewife Ri/o H. No 2-4-107, Beerappagadda, Uppal Hyderabad-500039

¶34

.....lmplead Petitioner/ Proposed Appeltant No.8

¶35

And

¶36

A. SRILATHA, W/o A Venkat Reddy, aged about 38 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Flat No. SD-205, H.No. 8-'l-329/1 , Anand Vihar, Tolichowki, Hyderabad Now residing at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. (rep by her GPA holder Sri. A.Venkat Reddy)

¶37

...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF

¶38

2 K. CHANDRA PRAKASH RAO, S/o. Narsimha Rao, aged about 80 yeara, Occ: Retired Employee, Rl/o. H.no. 11-7-205, (Old 11-7-131 ), Hilda Colony, Saroornagar. Hyderabad - 500 035

¶39

V.Ganesh, S/o. Radha Kishan Rao, aged about 53^years, Occ: Advocate,^Rl/o. 1 3-4-22, Vaddiraj Colony, Warangal.

¶40

V. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Rajeshwara Rao, aged about 55^years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 3-4-756/4, Flat No. 50'1 , Laxminarsimha Apartments, Hyderabad

¶41

N. Raghunath Rao, S/o. Hanumanth Rao,^{(died) per} LRs^{1 1} to¹⁵ aged about 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-4-75614, Flat No. 501, Laxminarsimha Apartments, Barkatpura, Hyderabad.

¶42

V. Shirsh Kumar, S/o Shankar Rao, aged about 49^years, Occ:^{Doctor, Rl/o.} H.No. 13-4-24, Patak Mahal Street, Warangal.

¶43

tvl.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy Aged about 57^years, Occ: Business, No. 12-8-268, Ramanapet, Hunter Road, Warangal.

¶44

P. Amarnath, Sio. Veereshalingam, Aged about,56^years, Occ: Business,^Rl/o. H.No. 9-8-39, Yella Bazar, Warangal.

¶45

.....Respondents/ Respondents/ Appellants/ Defendants

¶46

Petition under Section 151 OPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^{pleased to vacatethe interim} order passed in lA No. 2 of 2018 in lA No. 1 ol 2017 in SA No. 878 of 2017 dt. 12.O4.2018

¶47

For the Ailpellant : SRI A.RAVI BABU, Advocate

¶48

'For the Respondents : SRI B.VENKAT RAMA RAO, Advocate

¶49

For the Respondent No.8 : M/S CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES REP. BY SMT B.NAMRATHA REDDY

¶50

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶51

't>-n

¶52

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶54

SECOND APPEAL No.878 OF 2017

¶55

JUDGMENT:

¶56

The present appeal assails the judgment and decree dated lA.1-2.2O12 in A.S.No.3B6 of 2O1l on the Iile of the Court of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, (for short, lou'er appellate Court), wherein and whereby the .ludgment and decree dated 10. 10.20 1 I in O.S.No.l92B of 2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Vtll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, trial Cor-rrt). ',i,as rcvcrsr:d. Tl-rc said suit filed by the appellant herein for grant of perpctual injunction was decreed and it was reversed in the appeal

¶57

The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents trerein are the defendants in the suit. For the sake ol convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arraycd in the suit

¶58

The sum alcl substance of the case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolr-rte owner and possessor ol house plots bearing Nos.474 and 475, admeasuring l7? square yards, and 180.50 sqllare ,t,ards resPectivell., tot3l adlneasuring tn 357.50 squarc yard s S-y.No,6Ql 12 part, situated at

¶59

¶60

¶61

Mansoorabad Viliage, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter, they are referred to as ,suit schedule propertiesJ. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed document No.45I2/20O1. Eversiuce her purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. when tr-re dcfendants, without any right or authority, tried to interlere with her possession, the plaintiff filed the prese nt suit

¶62

The case of the delendants 1S that they denied the ownership and possession of the praintiff over the suit schedule properties. origins{ry, derenciant No. 1 was the owner of land admeasuring Ac.10_00 guntas in Sy.No.66/11, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land was allocated to defendant No.l by the Government Since he was a political sufferer. Later permission was granted on 28.08.1959 by the Government to alienate the said land. Defendant No.l had declared the said land before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and the said land was exempted from the provisions of the Urban Land Cciling Act.

-) ML,J sA 878 2017

It is the^further case of the defendants that later, defendant^{No.1 had} executed a settlement deed dated 06.04.^{I 979, whereunder} he settled^{Ac.8-00 guntas} in favour of his sons,^{Ac.l -20} in favour of his wife and retained the balance extent^of land Ac.2-00 with him. The suit schedule properties form part of the land settled in favour of his wife. Later, his wilc executed a gift deed document No.6081/2005 conveying^plot Nos.474 and, 475, total admeasuring 546 square yards, in favour of defendant No.1. Subsequently, defendant No. I constructed a compound wall surrounding 546 square yards.^Thercafter, he sold plot Nos.474 and 475, admeasuring 546 square yards in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 7 under a registered saie deed dated 14.05.2007.

¶68

After purchase ol said plots, defendant Nos.2 to 7 have removed the big boulder existing therein, and in the said process, boundary wall got damaged to some extent. While so, the husband of the plaintiff tired to interfere with the possession of clefendant Nos.2 to 7, for which, they made an application bcfore the Tahsildar for demarcation of Sy.Nos.66l11 and 66 112 to locate plot Nos.474 and 4ZS. On surver,. the^Tzrhsildar found that the said plots fall in S-y.No.66/¹ 1, 'uvhich is the property owned by defendant .? a

4 ML,J sA 878 2017 \

No. 1. On the above pleadings, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶73

7 . The trial Court, on the basis of the above pleadings, has framed the following issues:

¶74

" 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

¶75

To what reliep,,

¶76

The plaintiff, to support her case, examined p.Ws. 1 aid Z and relied upon Exs.A-l to A-9. The defendants, to support their case, examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and relied upon Exs.B-1 to B- 17. The Surveyor was examined as C.W.l.

¶77

The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the defendants filed the appeal and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal by reversing the judgmen t and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed at the instalce of the plaintiff.

¶78

This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, by order dated 12.03.2019, has framed the following substaltial questiolts of la.,r,:

¶79

nx 5 ML,J sA 87U 2017

¶80

¶81

"(i) Whether the finding recorded by the lowcr appellate Court in regard to the evidence of Commrssioner as C.W. 1 suffers from patent illegality; and

¶82

(ii) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated for want of proper appreciation of evidence in reversing the findings of the trial Court?

¶83

Findings on substantial q uestions of law Nos.(il & {ii}:

¶84

i 1. The evidence and pleadings of both the parties make out that the plaintiff is claim.ing her source of title from S.Venkata Swamy, who was the original owner of the land admeasuring Ac.10-00 guntas in Sy.No.66/12. The said S.Venkata Swamy sold the said land to T.sekaraiah @) Srinivasulu under a registered sale deed dated 20 .06.1967 vide document No.2275/1967. Out of the said land, in turn, the said T.Sekaraiah @ Srinivasulu sold an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-8.7 guntas in favour of Hashim Moinuddin uncler a registered sale deed dated O2.06.1984 vide document No.5879/ 1984.

¶85

It is also made out that the defendants are ciaiming title on the basis of allotment made by the Government to defendant No. I recognizing him as political sufferer. Subseqtrently, the Government permitted deferrdant No.l to alienate the property. The land allotted to defendant No.1 rvas Ac. iO-00 guntas in Sy.No.66/ll. Defendant No.1

¶86

6 ML,J sA 878 2017

¶87

¶88

settled land admeasuring Ac.g-00 guntas in favour of his family members under Ex.B-3. Ex.B_3 shows that defendant No.1 settled an extent of land admeasuring Ac. 1_ 20 guntas in favour of his wife, Ac. l_20 guntas in fa,",uor of his erdest son, Ac.2-00 guntas in favour of his erdest daughter, Ac.L_2O guntas in favour of his younger daughter and Ac. 1-20 guntas in favour of his younger son. Thus, total extent of land admeasuring Ac.g_00 guntas was settled in. favour of his wife and children and balance land admeasuring Ac.2-OO guntas was retained by him. However, in the pleadings, it has been claimed that land of Ac.8-00 guntas was settled to his children and Ac.l-2O gunras was settled to his wife apart from l"t.l.,i,rg Ac.2-OO gunras by him. As per the same, the total extent of land comes to Ac. 1l-20 guntas. This has been taken as one of the grounds by the trial Court to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, such pleadings are not in tune r.vith the regrstered document _ Ex.B_3. However, the trial Court has not perused the contents of Ex.B_3, which clearly makes out that Ac.8-00 guntas of land was settled in lavour of wife and children of defendant No. 1, which includes Ac. 1 _20 guntas of land allotted to the wife of defendant No. I, but not in

¶89

¶90

7 ML,J sA 878 2017

¶91

addition to Ac.8-00 guntas of land. The trial Court ought to have been given more weightage to the documentarSr evidence than the pleadings in the written statement.

¶92

Defendant No.l claimed the titte to plot Nos.474 and 475 basing on the gift deed document No.6Ogl/2005 executed by his wife. According to defendant No.l, plot Nos.474 and 475 consist of tand admeasuring 546 square yards, but not 357.50 square yards. Defendant No.1 further claimed that plot Nos.474 and 475 lorm part of the land settled by him in favour ol his wife i.e., Ac. i-20 guntas. According to the defendants, plot Nos.474 and 475 fatl under Sy.No.66/ll, but not under Sy.No _66/ 12, as claimed by the plaintiff.

¶93

It is also not in dispute that the plotted layout covers Sy,Nos.66/ i l and 66 / 12 of Mansurabad Village and Sy.Nos.12, L3, 14 part and 15 part of Tummabou,li Village and the total extent of layout is Ac.49-34 guntas. The owners of the above survey numbers together combined their individual extents to make the layout. The plaintifl,s source of title is through Hashim Moinudclin, who was holding title to the extent ol land of Ac.O-8.7 guntas in

i\4L.J sA 87ti 2017

Sy.No.66/11, which is equivalent to 1052.50 square yards. In the document of the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Hashim Moinuddin, the boundaries reflected as follows:

¶98

"North : Cart Way South : Sy.No.66l 1a East I Cart Track West : Neighbour's land"

¶99

The evidence also reflects that the husband of the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale-cum_GpA vide docrrment No.4454/2OO I with Hashim Moinuddin to plrchase plot Nos.474 (177 square yards), 47S (i8O.5O square yards), 476 (34l.SO square yards) and 477 (353.50 square yards), total comes to iO52.5O square yards, which is equivalent to A.O-8.7 guntas of land. The husband of the plaintiff has sold out plot Nos.476 and 4ZT, admeasuring 695 square yards to Smt.Anuradha through the sale deed document No.4513/200 l. The remaining extent of plot Nos.474 and 475 is 357.50 square yards which is subject matter of dispute.

¶100

Now the question is r.r,hether Hashim Moinuddin, having merged his land into pooling for formation of layout to an extent of Ac.0-8.7 guntas, still gets same extent of land after formation of layout. The evidence of the plaintiff shows that Hashim Moinuddin executed AGpA in favour of

)

) 9 ML,J sA 878 20i7

husband of the plaintiff and it shows that he has identilied four plots covering the entire extent which he was owning prior to land u'as given for development.

¶105

The case of the defendants is that Hashim Moinuddin was entitied onlv to the extent covered under plot Nos.476 and 477 since plot Nos.474 and 475 fell to the share of the wife ol defendant No. 1, who had contributed her share of land admeasuring Ac. 1 20 guntas in Sy.No.66/ 1 1.

¶106

The trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the link document ancl the document held by the plaintiff, but it has not looked into thc aspect how Hashim Moinuddin is entitled to the same extent of land even after the layout was formed by laying the roads. The boundaries mentioned in the document under which Ilashim Moinuddin purchased show that on the northern side, there is a Cart Way, on the eastern side, there is Cart Track and width of such Cart Way is not mentioned. Whereas, the AGPA document and the document executed in favour of the plaintiff shows that there is 40 f<ret road on the northern side and there is 3O feet road on rhe """,:a__":1.j

I ) i

ML,J sA 878 2017

The plaintiff laiied to explain how this cart way which existed on the northern and eastern sides changed to roads of 40 feet and 3O feet respectively. This means, some land of the plaintiff's vendor must be falling under the roads. Natura-lly, when the land was contributed for formation of layout, the contributor would not get the same extent of land, which he had contributed for development. Even going by the Gram panchayar Rules, the minimum space to be left fol roads is not less thal 1/3.a of the total extent of land. This means, every contributor to the layout must minimum forego nor less than 1 /3,a of his originai land for common amenities like roads. If that principle is applied, the plaintiff cannot establish how she could iclentify the four plots belonging to her vcndor while selling the propergr to her husband under the AGpA document bearing No.44S4/2OOl. If the extent of four plots is calculated, it is equivalent to Ac.O-8.7 cents of land (I052.50 square yards). This meals, the plaintiffs vendor tried to assert entire extent of land which he had contributed for the layout. If this has to be accepted, absolutcty even after formation of layout, original land is said to be intact. How her vendor,s land is intact is not explained by the plaintiff. [g dact, the trial court has not

¶112

¶113

w ll MI,,J sA 878 2017

¶114

considered this aspect. The trial^{Court has laid a great} emphasis on the^flow of title and^{productionof sale deed by} the plaintiff, u,hich is anterior to the defendants' sale deed.

¶115

20 . The trial Court also has put great emphasis on the extent of land claimed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, in his u,ritten statement, claimed that Ac.08-00 guntas of land was settled in favour of his children, Ac. 1-20 guntas of land u.as settlcd in favour of his wife and Ac.2-O0 guntas of land r.r,as retarned by him. If this'is accepted, it definitely goes more than Ac.10-00 guntas of 1and, which ctefendant No.1 \:as holding title and possession prior to the settlement. These pleadirtgs are going contrary to the recitals of Ex.U-3 i.e., settlement deed

¶116

A close scrutiny of the settlement deed reflects that the extent of A,c.U-00 guntas of land settled in favour of family members o1' delendant No.1 includes Ac.1-20 guntas of land settled in ftrvour of his wife and Ac.2-00 guntas of iand w'as retained bv him. The recitals of the documents under trx.B-3 were not looked into by the trial Court before holding that the pleadurgs of the defendants show they havc^claimed more thalAc. l0-00 guntas of lald. When there is a conflict

12 ML,J sA 878 2017

between the pleadings and terms of written document, the terms of the written document would be given preference over the pleadings. In fact, the pleadings clearly demonstrate that there is a mistake in drafting which is against the settlement deed. The trial Court ought not to have given much weightage to such pleadings in the light of registered document i.e., Ex.B-3.

¶121

The defendants relied upon the survey settlement done by the Tahsildar, through [4a.ndal Surveyor. The trial Court has given priority to some discrepancies in the survey report r.l,ith regard to the date of survey. The Surveyor was examined by the triat Court and he clarified that there is a mistake in mentioning of the date of survey and he has asserted that survey was done. The survey date is also referred by him.

¶122

As per survey report,-plot Nos. 424 and 4ZS are falling under Sy.No.660/ll, which.is owned by defendant No. I initially. This report was discarded by the trial Court on the ground that there was discrepancy in mentioning the date and also on the alieged date of survey, there was a protest by the Communist Party before the revenue officials. This

¶123

¶124

-( ML,J sA 878 2017

¶125

protest has been taken that there is no scope for making survey. In fact, the survey was done prior to institution of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had arr opportunity. to re-survey with reference to demarcation of survey numbers. In fact, the survey numbers have no relevance when the lands were thrown into joint stock ald developed into a complete layout. After the layout is made, there should have been an understanding for demarcating arfd allocating of plots de.r,eloped b1, pooling rheir respective extents covering the layout. In fact, such evidence is not placed on record. Both the parties are trying to assert their own extent basing on the layout. Though defendant No. 1 was also asserting his right over particular plots, he may have the weakness of his case, but when the plaintiff has come to the Court, she has to explain how she has claimed entire extent when the land was given for development by throwing the land into joinl pool for forming the layout. Indisputably, Hashim Moinuddin had throu,n his extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-8.7 guntas equivalent to 1052.50 sq. yards for formation of layout, and he cannot get the same extent after layout. If he cannot get the same extent, how can he transfer the same extent to the husbancl of the r'

! i I

14 ML,J sA 878 2017

piaintifP The piaintiff claimed such entire extent covered by the said survey numbers. These facts were not considered by the trial Court. Even the lower appellate Court, while reversing the findings of the trial Court, had not properly considered such evidence.

¶130

24, The admitted evidence shows that the suit schedule properties were covered by a compound wall. The defendants claimed that defendant No.1 had constructed a compound wall and sold the larrd to defendant Nos.2 to 7. On the contrar5r, the claim of the plaintifl is that her vendor constructed and soid the suit schedule properties to her. To prove her claim, she must show that her sale deed contains the compound wall. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not constructed the compound wa11. If the document is siient with regard to the constructior-r ol compound wali, the case of the plaintiff must fail that her vendor has constructed the wall, so as to establish the posscssion. This was also not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court feels that the plaintiff failed to establish her possession over the suit scl-redulc properties. Hence, I do not find any perversity in appreciation of t l-rc evidence by the

l5 ML,J sA 878 2017

lower appellatc Court in reversing in^{reversingthe judgment}

¶136

of the trial Court

¶137

The appre ciation of the evidence^{of C.W. 1 by the lower} appellate Court does not^suffer from^{any patent illegality,as} the views adopted by both the Courts^{beloware possible on} appreciation of evidence of C.W.1.^{Hence, I do not find any} perversity in appreciation of evidence by both^{the Courts} below in considering the evidence^{of C.W. 1. Accordingly'} both the substantial^{questions of law are decided.}

¶138

In the result, the Second^{Appeal isdismissed,} confirming thc .judgment and^{decree dated 1a.12-2O12in} A.S.No.386 of 201 I on the lile^{of the Court of the III} Additionai Drstrict Judge^{(Fast Track Court),Ranga Reddy}

¶139

District. Tt-rcre shall be no^{orcler as to costs. Miscellaneous}

¶140

petitions, if an,r', pending, shall^standclosed

¶141

'"*?flHIt?S'mR

¶142

\ \ '

¶143

Note: As^{per the letter dated23t1112022fi.led bv M/s Chandrasen} . Law offices represe;i"J^{b, s;iB'NamrathaRdddy' Advocate for} the Respondeni^{No.8 amendmentas follows:} Read the name^{oitn" S,t B'Namratha Reddy' counsel for the} ;;;";;""i'N;.8. init ",""0"i oider substitutes^{the earlier order} which was^{dispatchedon 16t11t2o22'}

*,-jti,SXXA?3rrmR

,TRUE COPY// .,^'

SECTIONbFFICER

To 1. The lll^{Additional District Judge,(FTC)Ranga Reddy District} (with records) Z. tne Vttt Additional^{Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶148

One CC to^{Sri A Ravi Babu, Advocate[OPUC]} - - +. On" CC to^{Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, Advocate[O|UC]} S. One CC^{to Smt B.Namratha Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]} 6. Two CD CoPies

¶149

l_,_-.

¶150

One Spare^CoPY

¶151

HIGH COURT

¶152

DATED:19/10/2022 DATED: 2911112022

¶153

,/=
,1- -'
!::
il-. ?nr-2

¶154

AMENDED JUDGMENT

¶155

SA.No.878 ot 2017

¶156

DISMISSING THE SA WITHOUT COSTS.

¶157

moA-
ry-v
)n tt

A Srilatha v. K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Srilatha v. K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kings Way Auto Services, Hya Vs Vani Bai (Died) and 12 Others

R. Kasinath Vs D. Subash

Kings Way Auto Services, Vs Sri Anil Agarwal

Tuljaram Yadav Vs Sundermal

T.Yadav Vs Sundermal

The Tahsildar and Another Vs Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4 Others