Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 75 (TS)

A. Anitha Rani v. M. Shantamma

2026-01-09

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2026
JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.762 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana , learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Kumar Purohit, learned counsel for respondent Nos3 and 4. None appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire material on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the only daughter of Mokire Narayana and Smt. Sakubai, and the said Mokire Narayana died intestate on 18.07.2007, leaving behind the plaintiff alone to succeed his estate, as the plaintiff's mother Sakubai and her grandparents pre-deceased Mokire Narayana. During his lifetime, he purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration through registered sale deed, and he has enjoyed the same as its lawful owner without any objection from any person till his last breath, and the plaintiff became the lawful owner of the said property. And further, the D2 interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the said property in the year 2001, for which the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.1461 of 2001 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against D2 therein seeking perpetual injunction and the same was pending, and that D2, with the help of anti-social elements, forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in the year 2001. The plaintiff impleaded D3 and D4 as parties to the said suit as they were in possession of the schedule property. Upon enquiries, it was revealed that D1 and D2 sold suit schedule property to D3 and D4 through registered sale deeds Nos.1113 and 1115 of 2001, representing as the legal heirs of Mokire Narayana without any manner of right, title and claim over the property to sell the suit schedule property to D3 and D4. 3a. D3 and D4 created the said documents to usurp the said property of the plaintiff basing on the sale deeds and they were not binding on the plaintiff. D1 claimed herself as the wife of Mokire Narayana and D2 claimed herself as daughter-in-law. 3a. D3 and D4 created the said documents to usurp the said property of the plaintiff basing on the sale deeds and they were not binding on the plaintiff. D1 claimed herself as the wife of Mokire Narayana and D2 claimed herself as daughter-in-law. D1 left the matrimonial house of plaintiff’s father within three months from the date of marriage and never returned and there was no conjugal life between D1 and plaintiff’s father and they never lived as wife and husband and she was mentally ill and unsound mind, as such plaintiff’s father married her mother in the year 1947. There were no issues to D1 through her father and her father has no sons either natural or adopted and no daughters except the plaintiff and the claim of D2 as daughter-in-law was far from truth and that D2 was an illiterate and has no proper senses and she did not know what she was doing in all senses and she was living with her parents at Kolukar village, Sadasivapet Mandal, Medak District and she hardly comes out of her house and was depending on others to attend her day to day needs and that the manner in which the property was sold to D3 and D4 establishes that it was only to usurp the property of the plaintiff and it also being sold at the very lesser rate than Government Value. Though it fetches about Rs.35,00,000/-, but the property was sold at Rs.9,90,000/-. 3b. The petition O.P.No. 352 of 2002 was filed before the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein she obtained Succession Certificate and she was declared as successor of Mokire Narayana vide order dated 18.09.2002 in the said OP which was granted after proper enquiry. 3c. D2 has also filed an application before the M.R.O, seeking succession certificate and the same was dismissed, as the plaintiff has been shown as the legal successor of late Mokire Narayana. The sale deeds which were executed by the defendants are being executed without any right as such, sought to declare the sale deeds as null and void. 3d. D1 died during the pendency of the suit. The sale deeds which were executed by the defendants are being executed without any right as such, sought to declare the sale deeds as null and void. 3d. D1 died during the pendency of the suit. D2 filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff suppressed the fact that D2 was the widow of adopted son who was brutally murdered for the purpose of the property and the adoption was done under the religious ceremony and the procedure was done in the public event. After the death of Mokire Narayana, the last rites were performed by the husband of D2. The death of Mokire Narayana was neither known to the plaintiff nor she was concerned with, as she has no way concerned with the family of Mokire Narayana, but only for the purpose of claiming right over the suit schedule property. She filed the present suit which is created and fabricated one and a false suit is filed against the order passed by the R.D.O, wherein who granted an interim stay to the proceedings of succession in file No.1346 of 2001 and also C.R.P.No.236 of 2003 against the succession proceedings in OP.No.353 of 2002 was pending, and prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. D3 and D4 filed their written statement denying knowledge of the plaintiff’s claims and specifically disputing the relationship between the plaintiff and late Mokire Narayana, as well as the marriage between Mokire Narayana and Sakubai. While admitting that late Mokire Narayana purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, D3 and D4 denied that the plaintiff was ever in possession or enjoyment of the said property. They further contended that the plaintiff has no relationship whatsoever with late Mokire Narayana and denied the allegations of land grabbing in respect of the suit-schedule property. 5. D3 and D4 further contended that D2 was not in possession of the suit schedule property as a legal heir of late Mokire Narayana. They stated that they purchased the suit schedule property from D2 after paying the full sale consideration. It was further contended that D1 and D2 are the wife and daughter-in-law of late Mokire Narayana and, as such, are legally entitled to claim rights over the suit schedule property and that the claim of the plaintiff about the sale deeds executed by D1 and D2 was false. It was further contended that D1 and D2 are the wife and daughter-in-law of late Mokire Narayana and, as such, are legally entitled to claim rights over the suit schedule property and that the claim of the plaintiff about the sale deeds executed by D1 and D2 was false. The admission of plaintiff regarding the marriage of late Mokire Narayana with D1 binds the plaintiff from denying the lawful rights of D1 and there was no separation between Mokire Narayana and D1, wife inherited the suit schedule property along with D2, D3 and D4 never conspired. Further, it is also contended that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and the sale deeds of the defendants which were legally valid and the succession certificate or declaration obtained by the plaintiff is not within the knowledge of D3 and D4 as they were not parties to those proceedings. 6. The plaintiff who made an application to grab the suit schedule property along with other properties by engaging unsocial elements has murdered M. Mahesh Kumar who was the son of M. Narayana and a case was also registered against her, besides that, the jewelry shop of Mokire Narayana situated at Afzalganj was looted, gold of nearly 15 to 20 kgs and lakhs of rupees were recovered by the police which is in the Court custody. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: i. Whether the plaintiff has become absolute owner and possessor of schedule property after the death of late Mokire Narayana? ii. Whether the suit schedule property is originally devolved on defendant no.1 after the death of late M.Narayana? iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of Registered sale deed dt. 9th and 10th April 2001 and thereby to declare the plaintiff as owner of it? iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to direct the defendants to put her in possession of the suit schedule property? v. To what relief? 8. During the course of trial, GPA holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B14 and Ex.B1a to B28a were marked on behalf of the defendants. 9. After considering the merits of the case, the learned Judge dismissed the suit. During the course of trial, GPA holder of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B14 and Ex.B1a to B28a were marked on behalf of the defendants. 9. After considering the merits of the case, the learned Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed on the grounds that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable. The learned trial Court has misread the evidence on record and misapplied settled principles of law in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the suit schedule properties belonging to her father i.e., late M. Narayana. 10. The appreciation of evidence and analysis of probabilities were wholly flawed and liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that prior to the advent of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there was no statutory prohibition against a second marriage. Consequently, the finding was that the plaintiff being the daughter of late M. Narayana through his second wife Sakkubai, was not entitled to succession is legally unsound. In a suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and recovery of possession, the Court was bound to determine succession and record a clear finding as to the legal heirs, which the learned trial Court failed to do, rendering the adjudication perfunctory. The rejection of Succession Certificate on the ground that it was an ex- parte order wholly erroneous, as a succession certificate was a judgment in rem as per Sections 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act. Further, the defendants, having set up a plea of succession through late Mahesh Kumar, failed to discharge the burden of proof. In the absence of any evidence supporting their claim, the sale deeds executed in favour of D3 and D4 were invalid and not binding on the plaintiff, who was the lawful successor to the suit schedule property. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff examined only PW1, Mrs. B. Jalaja, her daughter and General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, under a GPA dated 07.07.2006 executed at Hyderabad, given authority to her to file the suit and adduce the evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff herself did not enter into the witness box. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff examined only PW1, Mrs. B. Jalaja, her daughter and General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, under a GPA dated 07.07.2006 executed at Hyderabad, given authority to her to file the suit and adduce the evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff herself did not enter into the witness box. It is settled law that while a GPA holder is competent to depose, such deposition is confined only to facts which are within the knowledge of the GPA holder, and the GPA holder cannot step into the shoes of the plaintiff or depose on matters requiring the plaintiff’s own testimony, particularly in proof of title. In the absence of the plaintiff’s examination, and without any explanation or evidence showing her inability to depose, the plaintiff failed to prove her case. On the other hand, the record shows that the defendant alone entered the witness box and substantiated her contentions. 12. Though the GPA holder, who is the daughter of the plaintiff, was examined, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration, as the material particulars such as proof of a valid marriage between the plaintiff’s mother, Sakkubai, and late Mokire Narayana, the circumstances till the death of Mokire Narayana, the acquisition of the suit property during his lifetime, and his possession thereof were matters within the exclusive personal knowledge of the plaintiff and also the relief of injunction and matters relating to tax and possession required the plaintiff’s direct testimony. In view of the plaintiff’s failure to enter the witness box, as rightly contended by both the appellant and the respondents, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the plaintiff under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 13. The allegations and contentions raised by the plaintiff, in the absence of any evidence other than Exs.A1 to A8, cannot be accepted. The plaintiff failed to place cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claims. The learned Trial Court rightly held that such evidence cannot be treated as a substitute for proof of material facts, particularly to establish that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of late Mokire Narayana. The plaintiff failed to place cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claims. The learned Trial Court rightly held that such evidence cannot be treated as a substitute for proof of material facts, particularly to establish that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of late Mokire Narayana. In the absence of such evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly held against the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds bearing Nos.1113 and 1115 of 2001 executed in the name of D3 and D4 respectively by D1 and D2. 14. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not being in the possession of the suit schedule property and her deposition is not being established by any documentary evidence prior to the filing of the suit. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff was not in possession of suit schedule property and has been specifically proved. In view of the suit filed by D2 against the plaintiff, it is evident that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. Consequently, the question of D3 and D4 deposing in support of the plaintiff’s possession does not arise. The plaintiff having failed to establish possession over the suit schedule property, the learned Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek restoration of physical vacant possession from the defendants. 15. On orally assessment of the documentary evidence on record, the appeal preferred by the appellants falls to the ground for the reason that the plaintiff failed to enter the witness box and offered no satisfactory explanation for such non-appearance, thereby failing to substantiate her contentions. Further, the plaintiff did not prove her possession or lawful entitlement over the suit schedule property. Upon a careful perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, and after considering the entire material on record, this Court finds no error committed by the trial Court and no valid grounds are made out by the appellants to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Subsequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this City Civil Court Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.762 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Subsequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this City Civil Court Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.762 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.