Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 1 (TS)

K. Ganga Goud v. K. Vittal

2026-01-05

RENUKA YARA

body2026
JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the appellants on admission. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy (‘First Appellate Court’) in A.S.No.14 of 2024, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, (‘Trial Court’) in OS No. 1 of 2003, wherein a suit file seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession has been dismissed. 3. The background facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs claim to be owners and possessors of the suit schedule property consisting of 1422.75 square yards situated at Bathkammakunta, Kamareddy. Appellant Nos. 1 to 5 are purchasers and the remaining appellants are their legal heirs. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of open land admeasuring north eastern side 252 feet, western side 225 feet and east to west 490 feet, purchased by the father of the appellant Nos.1 to 5 from the owner Late Abdul Hameed under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 12.07.1958. Thereafter, said open land was converted into plots vide L.P.No.481 of 1984 and some plots were alienated. Ever since purchase, the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the land purchased by them. The appellants are running a toddy shop in the suit schedule property. The respondents have filed a suit against the appellants on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kamareddy in O.S.No.114 of 1986 claiming ownership and possession and the same is still pending. The appellants claim that the respondents are not owners and not having possession, but have illegally occupied the suit schedule property three years prior to filing of the suit. The appellants requested the respondents to vacate the suit schedule property, but the same was postponed on one pretext or the other. Therefore, left with no option, the appellants have filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 have filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No. 2 died during pendency of the suit leaving behind his legal heirs. The defendants denied the case of the appellants about the appellants being in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 50 years as owners. 4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 have filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No. 2 died during pendency of the suit leaving behind his legal heirs. The defendants denied the case of the appellants about the appellants being in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 50 years as owners. Respondent No.1 constructed 20 rooms in the suit schedule property and some of the rooms were occupied by the respondents and their families and some are let out to tenants. The houses were constructed 30 years prior to the filing of the suit and respondents are residing therein. Further, a hut is constructed and the same is used as toddy shop. The appellants purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12.07.1958 from Abdul Majeed, but the same is wrong as Abdul Majeed was not the owner of the suit schedule property which is in the possession of respondents. The respondents admitted filing a case against the appellants and its pendency. The respondents claim to have purchased the suit schedule property 50 years ago and they are in continuous possession and also perfected the title by adverse possession. 5. During the pendency of suit, appellant Nos.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 27 died and their legal heirs were brought on record as appellant Nos.37 to 41, 21 to 26, 30 and 31 and 32 and 33 to 36 respectively. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 have died and their legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.9 to 12, 15 to 20 and 21 to 24 respectively were brought on record. Respondent Nos.25 to 27 were impleaded vide orders in I.A.No.109 of 2013 dated 30.06.2015. 6. Respondent No.3 filed additional written statement and the same was adopted by respondent Nos.5 and 15 to 20. Respondent No.3 pleaded that respondent No.1 acquired land to an extent of north: 160 feet, south: 160 feet, east: 90 feet and west: 120 feet total 16800 square feet equal to 1866 square yards at Bathkammakuntha, Kamareddy about 70 years ago and had constructed 29 rooms. In said land about 20 years ago, the Grama Panchayath of Kamareddy has allotted house Nos.1-2-85/C, 1-2-85/B, 1-2- 85/G, 1-2-85/E, 1-2-85/D. The names of respondents are entered in the records, whereby a certificate is issued in proof of their residence in the suit schedule property since 1970. In said land about 20 years ago, the Grama Panchayath of Kamareddy has allotted house Nos.1-2-85/C, 1-2-85/B, 1-2- 85/G, 1-2-85/E, 1-2-85/D. The names of respondents are entered in the records, whereby a certificate is issued in proof of their residence in the suit schedule property since 1970. Respondent No.1 and his family are in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 50 years without any interruption and therefore, they also have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. 7. According to Ex.A-1 registered sale deed, the land purchased by the appellants is situated at Maisammakunta, which is one km away from the suit property. No documents are produced by the appellants to show that Abdul Hameed was the owner of the suit schedule property. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have partitioned the suit schedule property in the year 1991 and they are in possession of the respective allotted portions without any interference. The boundaries of the plaint schedule 1866 square yards is north: road, south: road leads to Dr. Anjal Reddy Hospital, east: road and west: Dr. Prabhavathi Hospital situated at Bathkammakuntha. The respondents denied dispossessing the appellants from the suit schedule property three years prior to institution of the suit and therefore, claimed that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Respondent Nos.25 to 27 have filed a joint written statement claiming that the appellants are claiming their property to be situated at Bathkammakunta to an extent of 1422.75 square yards, whereas said land exclusively belongs to respondent Nos.25 to 27. Respondent Nos.25 to 27 and their forefathers are possessors of the property having constructed house bearing Nos.1-2-85/C, 1-5-43 and 44. The house numbers have been changed from time to time and currently the house number is 1-5-99. The respondents are in possession of their property from more than 50 years. Respondent Nos. 25 to 27 disputed the title claimed by the appellants from Abdul Hameed alias Shabjan under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed. The respondents denied the appellants converting the land into plots and also pleaded that the open space claimed by the appellants is located in Maisammakunta, whereas the open land belonging to respondent Nos. 25 to 27 is located at Bathkammakunta i.e., Maisammakunta and Bathkammakunta of Kamareddy are different places situated at different locations having been converted into abadi i.e., existence of several houses constructed in said places. 9. 25 to 27 is located at Bathkammakunta i.e., Maisammakunta and Bathkammakunta of Kamareddy are different places situated at different locations having been converted into abadi i.e., existence of several houses constructed in said places. 9. The appellants got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and have exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-7. The respondents have examined D.Ws.1 to 6, but D.W.4 did not appear for cross-examination as such his evidence was eschewed. The respondents have marked Exs.B-1 to B-78. The Trial Court upon examining the entire documentary and oral evidence has dismissed the suit. 10. The learned Trial Court considered the issue of whether the suit is abated against the deceased defendant No.2/respondent No.2 and the same was answered in favour of the appellants. On the issue of whether the vendor of the appellants had right to sell the suit schedule property to the appellants under Ex.A-1, it is held that the vendor does not have any right and therefore, no title passed under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed. The said finding was given on account of the fact that none was examined to prove that the vendor of the appellants had title over the suit schedule property. Upon examining the evidence, it is held that the land purchased by the appellants under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed is Government land. There is a finding about non-appearance of name of vendor of the appellants in revenue records/municipal records. Summing up the oral and documentary evidence, it is held that Ex.A-1 sale deed does not confer valid title on the appellants. With respect to possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property and whether they have perfected the title through adverse possession, reference is made to Exs.B-1 to B-78 tax receipts and electricity bills. Further, it is held that Ex.B-48 certified copy of Certificate dated 18.10.2006 issued by the Municipality, Kamareddy with respect to house numbers in Bathkkammakuntha from the year 1972 to 2006 proves that the respondents have been in possession of the suit schedule property from 1970 which is 18 years prior to filing of the suit. With respect to possession of the respondents over suit schedule property by means of adverse possession, the same is discarded, as the respondents on one hand claim to have purchased the suit schedule property and on the other are claiming adverse possession. With respect to possession of the respondents over suit schedule property by means of adverse possession, the same is discarded, as the respondents on one hand claim to have purchased the suit schedule property and on the other are claiming adverse possession. As per the documents filed by the respondents, they have constructed houses and are in possession of the same. The same is evidenced by Exs.B-59, B-60, B-64 to B-67, B-69, B-70 and B-76 to B-78. The documents exhibited in B series show that the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1970 and not three years prior to filing of the suit as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, it is held that the respondents have successfully established their possession over the suit schedule property for 30 years. Further, on the issue of location of the property at Bathkammakunta and Maisammakunta, it is held that there is no proof that Bathkammakunta and Maisammakunta are the same place on ground as claimed by the appellants and that the respondents’ claim that Bathkammakunta and Maisammakunta are two different places with a distance of one km in between them. As per Ex.A-1 sale deed, the suit schedule property claimed by the appellants is located in Maisammakunta, but the appellants are claiming suit schedule property to be located in Bathkammakunta. In view of this discrepancy, the Trial Court came to conclusion that the appellants cannot claim their land to be located in Bathkammakunta. Further, as per evidence on record, Bathkammakunta is Government land and until the Government confers valid title, the appellants cannot acquire title. In view of the foregoing, the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession has been dismissed, leading to filing of the first appeal in A.S.No.14 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court. 11. The learned First Appellate Court appreciated the evidence on record afresh, more particularly the contents of documentary evidence adduced by the appellants and the respondents extensively, and confirmed the findings given by the Trial Court. The only observation made by the learned First Appellate Court is that the Trial Court ought to have discussed the contents of the exhibits of A series at greater length, but concluded stating that the findings are correct and therefore, confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is preferred. 12. The only observation made by the learned First Appellate Court is that the Trial Court ought to have discussed the contents of the exhibits of A series at greater length, but concluded stating that the findings are correct and therefore, confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is preferred. 12. In the Second Appeal, the appellants have raised the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether in the light of defence of adverse possession, the plaintiff is required to prove his title or whether the plea of adverse possession amounts to implied admission of title? B. Whether the Courts below could have dismissed the suit when the defendants failed to prove adverse possession and where there is an implied admission of title? C. The Courts below ought to have examined the case with reference to Articles 27, 58, 59, 65 and 113 of the Evidence Act by not adopting this approach, the Courts below have committed a serious error. D. When the identity of the land is not disputed in the written statement, whether the Courts can suo motu examine the said issue? E. Whether the Trial Court can travel beyond the pleadings and deal with the case and base the judgment beyond the pleadings? 13. The substantial question of law at Sl.No.A is about the claim of respondents with respect to adverse possession over the suit schedule property. The appellants raised a question about whether there is a need for them to prove their title when plea of adverse possession taken is taken by the respondents i.e., implicitly the title of the appellants has been acknowledged. In this regard, it is a point to be noted that when a party approaches the Court for declaration of title, the burden of proof is on such party to prove the title and they cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendants/respondents for declaration of the title. Further, a plaintiff in a suit cannot take contradictory stands with respect to the facts of the case. However, the defendants to the suit are always entitled to take contradictory pleas. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the respondents herein have taken contradictory stands about purchasing the suit schedule property and also claiming title through adverse possession, the same does not in itself prove the case of appellants. However, the defendants to the suit are always entitled to take contradictory pleas. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the respondents herein have taken contradictory stands about purchasing the suit schedule property and also claiming title through adverse possession, the same does not in itself prove the case of appellants. Therefore, there is no substance in the substantial question of law at Sl.No.A. 14. The question at Sl.No.B is about failure on the part of the respondents to prove adverse possession and implied admission of title and the same is akin to the substantial question of law at Sl.No.A. The appellants herein cannot rely upon the weakness of the case of the respondents, but have to prove their case independently. Therefore, it is not permissible for them to probe into the genuineness of the respondents' case. 15. The substantial question of law at Sl.No.C is application of Articles 27, 58, 59, 65, and 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the same is not valid in view of the fact that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at similar conclusions with respect to title of the appellants, the possession of the respondents, the land in question being Government land and failure on the part of appellants to prove that they were forcibly disposed the years prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, this Court does not see any error committed on the part of either the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court about appreciation of evidence as per the relevant Sections of Indian Evidence Act. 16. The substantial question of law at Sl.No.D is about dispute of the identity of land and when the same is not raised in the written statement. It is false that the issue of identity of land was not raised as the respondents have taken a consistent plea that the appellants have purchased land under Ex.A-1 at Maisammakunta, but have filed a suit for land which is situated at Bathkammakunta, which is at a distance of one km from Maisammakunta. Therefore, it is a false plea that the issue of identity of suit schedule property was not raised in the written statement. Therefore, it is a false plea that the issue of identity of suit schedule property was not raised in the written statement. Even in case the same is true, the question raised is a question of fact, but not a question of law, and therefore, said question cannot form basis for entertaining a second appeal. 17. The substantial question of law at Sl.No.E is about Trial Court travelling beyond pleadings. The appellants failed to state on what aspect the Trial Court travelled beyond pleadings. Ambiguous questions cannot constitute substantial question of law which has to be considered under Section 100 of CPC in a Second Appeal. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion about the case of the appellants and respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is failure on the part of appellants on many fronts i.e. proof of title, proof of possession and proof of identity of land on ground. Therefore, both the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given appropriate findings and have dismissed the suit. Currently, there is no point that needs to be adjudicated under Section 100 of CPC in a Second Appeal, as there are no substantial questions of law to be entertained. In view of the same, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.