Dismissed

Koleti Venkateswarlu v. Bandi Rami Reddy [died]

Telangana HC21 Feb 2023SA/1095/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal against a judgment granting a permanent injunction. The court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding possession could not be disturbed on appeal as no substantial question of law was raised. The associated contempt case was also closed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed and the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs.

Koleti Venkateswarlu Vs Bandi Rami Reddy [died] — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁶⁰ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FO.R-T,E STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶7

Appear Under section 100 of c.p.c.agq1.nst _th.e Judgment and Decree dated 02-05.2008 made in A.s.No.tg oliod,2 0n tnE ne oitn-e-dourt of the principar senior 8lY:l,llgg?5",'i3noys:r,fl1%Tl"f;i',fi lBi,.l;,iirml,-,,:^?5,U::*dated

¶8

Between:

¶9

1' Koreti venkaf,g-sy-arru,.Q{o Ggpaigh, aged about 36 years, occ: Agricurture R/o Sathupaily Mtrage ani uanadl, Kdmil-rr 6IJt. ""^,

¶10

Koleti Gopaiah [died]

¶11

Parasa^pedd puilaiah [died],

¶12

Parasa china. puraiah, s/o Bjxamaiah, Agpg.3g years, occ: Agricurture R/o Sathupally Village anO ir,tanOif Knammam Dist.

¶13

Parasa Vajramma, Wo peda puilailah. eoert s6 va: " Uffi;"irflriiag" and Mandar, K'Jl3llil'";.nffift vears' occ: House hold R/o

¶14

u 33[fr ir:ffi afi%li"r:;33,,?,1'l,.l,ikfln;*.28^{years, occ: AsricurtureR/o}

¶15

, puflaitah, aged 22yenrs,R/o sathuparryMilageand

¶16

[,:fe|??,i,1*r,fufl"r?;da

¶17

Koteti Muthamma, W{q Gggalq.fr,-aged fg years, Occ: house hold R/o Sathupally Mllage bnO tvtanOit, Khammam bnO tvtanOit, Khammam tvtanOit, Khammam Oist.

¶18

Sathupally Mllage bnO tvtanOit, Khammam bnO tvtanOit, Khammam tvtanOit, Khammam Oist.

¶19

t [fi5J:X?X.f}:"::1, 3fl3fl?T;,An#,lu^{vears,occ:Asricurture R/o sathupauy}

¶20

l0.Kambhamoati pedda Venkatamma, {g.Appata swamy, aged 46 years, occ: House hord R/o s;ihup;ir;viu;;; and Mandar, Khammam Disr.

¶21

ll.Thadikamaila china'Venkatamql wo Krishna, occ: house hold R/o Sathupally Viflage anO tr,tinOi[.knammmam Oisi.^'-,

¶22

"^$ft L"j'"Tl,T 1il.:'"1, ?fl:ilh]ti$ ,!l^r*, occ : As ricurtu re R/o sath upar rv

¶23

tt'[:fXJ1li'fx;r[:* occ: Asriculture R/o sathuparry Mllase and

¶24

BSroor'''h,

¶25

...APPELLANTS/DEFEN DANTS

¶26

''j.{Ar'r., ,ffi.; ,,1ffi

AND

Bandi Rami^Reddy [died],^{S/o Laxma Reddy}

¶32

Bandisanthamma,^{wo Bandi Ramireddy,nge{7'!years,occ: Agriculture} nrc Srinrpitrv Vittige^{and Mandal, Khammam Dist'}

¶33

Bandi^{Rathupathi Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy}

¶34

All are R/o^{Sathupally Village and Mandal, Khammam Dist'}

¶35

..RESPONDENTS'PLAINTIFFS

¶36

l.A. NO: 1^{OF 2008(SAMP. NO: 2426OF 2008)}

¶37

Petition under^{section151 CPC praying that in the circurnstancesstated} in the affidavit^{fited in support of the p"iition, tne nign Court may b: pleased to} stay the operation^{of the} ludgment^{and decree pasledin OS'no' 220 of 1993} dated 31-12-96^{passed oy xotnagudemthe Junior civil Judge,Khammam as} confirmed^{in AS.No.1gto2 dated i-s-zoaa on the file of the learned Principal} Senior civil Judge,^{Kothagudem p"noing disposalof the sA in the interestof} justice.

¶38

counsel for the^{Appellants:sRl KowTURUPAVAN KUMAR}

¶39

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI KOPPULAGOPAL}

¶40

GONTEMPT^{CASE NO: 945 OF 2016}

¶41

contempt case^{filed Under sections 10 to 12 of} .contempt^{of courts Act to} punish the respoiJ"ntr n"r"in tor witt-utly.fl9llob."ytlg^ Ih19t9."t9,of^{the High} court dated^{30.10.1008p"s"o in s.A.rvr.d.ruo.zazoot 2oo-ain s.A.No.1095of 2008.}

¶42

Between:

¶43

Bandi Santhamrna,^{Wo.BandiRami Reddy, Aged about 80 years'} Occ: Agriculture

¶44

Bandi Raghupathi^{Reddy, s/o.RamiReddy, Aged about62 years,occ:Retd} Employee.

¶45

(Both are Residents^{of Sathupally Village and Mandal, Khammam District')}

¶46

...PETITIONERSIRESPONDENTS^NO.2&3

¶47

AND

¶48

Koteti Venkateswarlu, S/o.Gopaiah,^{Aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,} R/o.sathupally Village and Mandal,^{Khammam District.}

¶49

...RESPONDENT/1^ST RESPONDENT

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KOPPULA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR The Court made the'following: COMIIION^JUDGMENT

¶51

¶52

THB HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY l09s oF 2 F I

¶53

This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.05.2008 in A.S.No.19 of 2002, on rhe file of the principal senior civil Judge, Kothagudem, wherein the said appeal filed by the appellants herein was dismissed, confirming the judgment and dccree dated 31.12.1996 in o.S.No.220 of 1993, on the file of the Principal District Munsi-f. Kothagudem, wherein the suit filed by the respondents herein for permanent injunction, was decreed.

¶54

c.c.No.945 of 2016 is liled by respondenrs Nos.l to 3 (plaintiffs) in the second appeal complaining willful disobedience o1' the orders dated 30.10.2008 passed by this c'ourt in S.A.M.P.No.2426 of 2008 in S.A.No. t095.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel f<rr the appellants and the leamed counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶56

l'he respondent, who is plaintiff, filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the appellanrs. r.vho are defenclants. restraining thern fiom intcrl'ering with the plaintifl,s peaceful possession

¶57

.( I 1I I t

¶58

¶59

and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit land from M.Satyanarayana under an agreement of sale Ex.A-l dated 16.08.1990. The said Satyanarayana purchased the suit land from the original^pattadar. Ever since then, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the defendants tried to dispossess him, the^plaintiff filed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction.

¶60

The defendant filed rvritten statement contending that they have succeeded to the properties frotn their ancestors who^werethe protected tenants and the suit property is part of the said property and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same in^the

¶61

capacity of owners and the sale pleaded by the deceased^plaintiff was hit by Section 46 of the Tenancy Act.

¶62

The trial Court framed the following issues:

¶63

i) Whether the^plaintiff is entitled for^grant of^permanent injunction?

¶64

To what relief? ii)

¶65

During trial, the^plaintiff was^examined as P.W.l and also examined P.W.2 and^marl<ed [lxs.A-l to A-4. On behalf o{' defendants, D.ws.l to 5 were examined and Exs.B-l to B-9 were

¶66

¶67

,rt

¶68

marked. Before the appellate Courr, on behalf of plaintiffs Exs.A-5 to 8 were marked and on beharf of defendants, Exs.B-l0 to B-14 were marked by way of additional evidence.

¶69

on a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial court held that the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for. The trial Court further held that the evidence o1'P.ws.l and 2 coupled with F:xs.A-l to A-4 established possession the plaintiff over the suit land prior to the date of suit, whereas the defendants failed to prove their possession over the suit land at any time. Aggrieved by the.iudgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeal in A.S.No.l9 of 200 z, onthe file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Kothagudem. The learned principal Senior civil Judge, by judgrnent dated 02.05.200g, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed.

¶70

As can be seen from the grounds of appeal, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, has been raised, except contending that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. I'he suit is filed for mere injunction. The

¶71

¶72

!--',''

¶73

plaintiff adduced o'i'al and documentary evidence in^supportof his claim of ownership and possession over^{the suit land.} The defendants, while denyirrg the plaintiffs claim,^{pleaded that} the suit land purchased by M.Satyanarayana^{from the original} pattadar in the year 1958 is hit by Section 45 of^{the Tenancy Act} and that the plaintiff got manipulated the^{pahaniesfor the purpose} of suit. The appellate court^held that on^{the strengthof Exs.B-10} to B- 14, the defendants cannot^{claim that they are in possessionof} the suit land by the date of filing the suit.^{Both the Courts below} have, on proper appreciation of evidence,^{oral and documentary} available on record, upheld the claim of^{possessionmade by the} plaintiff. The said concurrent finding recorded^{by the Coutts} below on a question of fact,^{cannotbe interfered with in the second} appeal. lt is well settled^{that the scope of secondappeal is limited.} 10. IN R.RAMACHANDRAN^{AYYAR VS. RAMALINGAM}

¶74

CHETTIART, the Apex^Court held^{as follows:}

¶75

"That the High Court was not^justified in interfering with the findings of fact^{recordedby the first appellate} Court in^{favour of} the appellants.^{There is no jurisdiction} to entertain a seconcl appeal^on the ground of an erroneous^finding of fact, however,^gross or inexcusable

I '^(1963)SCR604 il

the error may seem !g be. To enable the High Court to interfere under Section 100(1)(c) of the Code of Civit Procedure there must be a substantial error or defect in the procedure which may possibly have produced error or defect in decision of the case upon the merits; it is not enough that there is an error or defect in the appreciation of evidence. Even where the appreciation of evidence made by the first appellate court is patenfly erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, it cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in procedure".

¶80

I l. In KSHITISH CHANDRA BosE vs. COMMISSIONER oF

¶81

RANCHI2. the Apex court held that 'the High court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. It exceeded,its jurisdiction under section 100 in

¶82

reversing pure concurrent findings'of fact given by the trial Court and the then appellare Court both on the question of title and that of adverse possession.'

¶83

12, [n VEERAYEE AMMAL VS. SEENI AMMAL3, the Hon'ble Apex court held while deprecating the practice of liberal construction and generous application of provisions of Section 100 by the High Courts, observed as follows:

2 (198r) 2 SCC 103

3 (2OO2l I SCC 134

"lt is distresbing that despite amendment, the provisions of Section 100 of the Code have been liberally construed and generously applied by some^judges of the High Courts with the result that the objective intended to be achieved by the amendment of Section 100 appears to have been frustrated. Even before the amendment of Section 100 of the Code, the concurrent finding of facts could not be disturbed in the second appeal".

¶88

lt was further held as follows:

¶89

"ln this case the question was covered under lssue 1 as framed by the trial court and issue 1 *at, admittedly, an issue of fact which was concurrently held in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and did not^justify the High Court to disturb the same by substituting its own finding for the findings of the Courts below, arrived at on appreciation of evidence.'

¶90

Unless the appellant in the second appeal is able to canvass the substantial question of law, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts belor.v cannot be disturbed by re-appraisal of the evidence. It is not the case of the appellant nor does the record also show that the impugned^judgments suffer from any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence.

¶91

Under those circumstances, it is held that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for determination in

¶92

¶93

the present second appeal. fhe.re are no merits in the second appeal.

¶94

15, on 30.10.2008, rhis court, while admitting the second appsal, granted status quo. As fe first appellant in the second appeal violated the order of status quo, the respondents (plaintiffs) filed the present contempt case complaining willful disobedience of the orders dated 30.10.2009 passed by this court in S.A.M.P.No.2426 of 2008 in S.A.No.l095. [nasmuch as the

¶95

second appeal is dismissed, this contempt case is closed.

¶96

In the result, the second appeal is dismissed and the

¶97

contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶98

¶99

.t sD/-8.S. JOINT //TRUE COPY//

JOINT

..,,..1 l

SECTION

Kh a m m a m (wi th reco rd s ) To,I il S EI| ffi iESi i,",i,LT 3lIi' r',ff8',["",'ffi,flT' 3. one CC to SRI KOWTUnU eAV41.r 5t/-rUnn, Advocate tOpUCl 4. one cc to sRt KoppUlA cciinr nb*ilGiSpiricf 5. Two CD Copies --.-- '[-- - KKS

BS(

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED |2110212023

ltiE S14
ii 23 lqAH2[?3

¶110

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶111

SA.No.1095 of 2008 AND^{CG NO.945 OF 2016}

¶112

DISMISSING OF^{THE SA} AND CLOSING OF^{THE CC} WITHOUT GOSTS

¶113

?
J,,#

¶114

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶115

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶116

PRESENT

¶117

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶118

Between:

¶119

Koleti Venkateswarlu, S/o Gopaiah, aged about 36 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶120

Koleti Gopaiah [diedl

¶121

Parsa Pedd Pultaiah [died],

¶122

Parasa China Pullaiah, S/o Bixamaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶123

Parasa Vajramma, Wo Peda Pullailah, aged 56 years, Occ: House hold

¶124

Parsa Sreenu, S/o late Peda Pullailah, aged 28 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶125

Parsa Nagendra, S/o Peda Pullailah, ag,ed 22 years,

¶126

Koleti Muthamma, Wo Gopaiah, aged 76 years, Occ: house hold

¶127

Koleti Ramulu, S/o Gopaiah, aged 56 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶128

l0.Kambhampati Pedda Venkatamma, Wo Appala Swamy, aged 46 years, Occ: House hold

¶129

l l.Thadikamalla China Venkatamma, Wo Krishna, Occ: house hold.

¶130

Koleti Krishna, S/o Gopaiah, aged 31 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶131

Koleti Narsimha Rao, S/o Gopaiah, Occ: Agriculture

¶132

All are R/o. Sathupally Village and Mandal, Khammmam Dist.

¶133

...APPELLANTS/DEFEN DANTS

¶134

AND

¶135

Bandi Rami Reddy [died], S/o Laxma Reddy

¶136

Bandi Santhamma, Wo Bandi Ramireddy, Aged 71 years, Occ: Agriculture

¶137

Bandi Rathupathi Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy

¶138

All are R/o Sathupally Village and Mandal, Khammam Dist.

¶139

...RESPONDENTS/PLAI NTI FFS

¶140

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.05.2008 made in A.S.NO.19 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem preferred against the Decree in O.S.NO. 220 of 1993 dated 31.12.1996 on the file of the Court of the Principal District lvlunisif, Kothagudem.

¶141

ORDER: This Second^{appeal comingon for hearing, upon perusing the g-roundsof} appeal, the Judgmlni^{rnO Decree of-the LowerAppellate Court and the Court of the} First lnstance and^{the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing} 1ft9 ryq'ents^of sRl KoWTURU PAVAN^{KUMAR, for Appellantsand of sRl KoPPULAGOPAL for} the Respondents

¶142

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

¶143