THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal Nos.664 and 946 of 2010 Date:21st January, 2011 S.A.No.664 of 2010: Between: Artham Jangaiah ... Appellant a n d Smt.D.Vijayalaxmi … Respondent *** S.A.No.946 of 2010: Between: Artham Jangaiah ... Appellant a n d 1. Smt.D.Vijayalaxmi 2. Sri N.Balakista Reddy … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal Nos.664 and 946 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree, 09.03.2010. passed in A.S.Nos.67 and 68 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar. More precisely, Second Appeal No.664 of 2010 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 09.03.2010, passed in A.S.No.67 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree, dated 09.09.2004, passed in O.S.No.52 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Whereas, Second Appeal No.946 of 2010 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 09.09.2004 passed in A.S.No.68 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree, dated 09.09.2004, passed in O.S.No.27 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of these Second Appeals by Artham Jangaiah are:- a) Respondent Smt.D.Vijayalaxmi and appellant Artham Jangaiah are claiming 330 sq. yards comprising Survey No.667/AA, situated at Amangal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Artham Jangaiah claims that he purchased the property from N.Balakista Reddy in the year 1975 under a private sale deed. Whereas, D.Vijayalaxmi claims that she purchased 330 sq. yards from Sankaraiah and Rangachari under a registered sale deed. Artham Jangaiah filed O.S.No.27 of 1993 impleading D.Vijayalaxmi and N.Balakista Reddy as defendants for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Whereas, D.Vijayalaxmi filed O.S.No.,52 of 1993 impleading Artham Jangaiah as the sole defendant seeking for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the self- same property. b) The trial Court settled the following issues in O.S.No.27 of 1993 i.e. suit filed by Artham Jangaiah: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule plot and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same? 2) Whether the sale deed dt:6.2.75 under which the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from second defendant is not true, valid and binding on the defendant? 3) Whether the defendant No.2 has no right to alienate the plaint schedule plot to the plaintiff and the same is situated in Sy.No.667/AA which is included in the holding of Krishna Reddy as per A.P. Land Ceiling Act? 4) To what relief? The issues settled in O.S.No.52 of 1993 i.e. the suit filed by D.Vijayalaxmi are as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that she is the owner of the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same? 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? 3) To what relief? c) Both the suits came to be clubbed and evidence came to be recorded in the suit of Artham Jangaiah i.e. O.S.No.27 of 1993. On behalf of Artham Jangaiah, he got himself examined as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of D.Vijayalaxmi, she got herself examined as DW.1 and also examined her vendors as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 42 documents as Exs.B1 to B.42. d) The trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that Krishna Reddy is the original owner of the suit land and D.Vijayalaxmi purchased the property under registered sale deed and therefore, she is entitled for declaration of her title. The trial Court also recorded a finding that Artham Jangaiah failed to establish that N.Balakrishna Reddy owned the suit schedule property. Since D.Vijayalaxmi disposed of the suit schedule property pending the suit, the trial Court while declaring title of D.Vijayalaxmi, refused to grant perpetual injunction. Whereas, the suit filed by Artham Jangaiah ended in dismissal. For better appreciation, I may refer paras.20 to 25 of the common judgment passed by the trial Court, which read as hereunder: “20. Considering the evidence available, it is established by DW.1 that original owner of Sy.No.667 is Krishna Reddy, more over PW.1 could not establish that his vendor Balakrishna Reddy is owner of Sy.No.667. Ex.B-22, and Exs.B-27 to B-37 are sufficient to believe that Sy.No.667 belong to Krishna Reddy. Thereby Krishna Reddy has got a transferable right in every inch of land in Sy.No.667. Evidently, DW-1 purchased the property from the persons who acquired it through original owner and who have purchased the land from the original owner got it mutated in their names vide Exs.B-13 and B-14 and predecessor in title of DW-1 purchased these two plots from them. Therefore, the title of DW.1 is substantiated by the evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and the documents exhibited by her and those were discussed in the previous paragraphs. 21. Therefore, I hold that DW-1 could successfully establish that she is the owner of the disputed property and therefore, she is entitled for the declaration of title as prayed for. Whereas, PW.1 could not establish that his vendor has got a transferable right in Sy.No.667, through whom he claims title. Therefore, PW.1 failed to establish that he is entitled for declaration of his title, in respect of disputed property. This part of issue is held accordingly. 22. The later part of issue No.1 in both the suits is the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants in respective suits. PW-1 did not file any document to establish that he is in possession of plaint suit property. Therefore, he fails to satisfy the court that he is in possession of the property. Therefore, he is not entitled for injunction. 23. The evidence of Dw-1 clearly shows that she constructed house by obtaining permission from Grampanchayat and she is in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. The documents furnished by her are sufficient to believe that DW.1 was in possession of the property as on the date of suit. Therefore, she is entitled for injunction as on that date. 24. The evidence of DW.1 further shows that she sold the property during pendency of the suit, but the subsequent purchasers were not added in the suit. In view of the admission of the subsequent sale in favour of third parties, DW.1 is out of possession as on this date and even though the injunction is granted in her favour, there will be no executable decree. Therefore, as on this date, she cannot be granted injunction against the defendnat. 25. In the result, the plaintiff in O.S.No.52/93 is declared as owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit and she acquired transferable title in respect of plaint schedule property and issue No.1 of O.S.No.52/93 is held in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.27/93 is held against the plaintiff.” Artham Jangaiah filed two appeals being A.S.Nos.67 and 68 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, assailing the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.27 and 52 of 1993. The lower appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and thereby proceeded to dismiss both the appeals, by a common judgment, dated 09.03.2010. Hence, these two Second Appeals by Artham Jangaiah. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the common judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit filed by D.Vijayalaxmi is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Krishna Reddy, through whom she claims the title over the property. A further submission has been made that Ramulu and Badraiah had no registered sale deeds in respect of the property said to have purchased from Krishna Reddy, in which case, they cannot convey any right over the property to Rangachari and Sankaraiah. 5. The dispute between the parties is as to who is the original owner of 330 sq. yards comprising Survey No.667/AA, situated at Amangal Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. According to the appellant, it is Balakista Reddy and whereas, according to D.Vijayalaxmi it is Krishna Reddy. D.Vijayalaxmi besides examining her as DW.1, examined T.Ranga Chary and Krishnaiah as DWs.2 and 3 and marked the approved plan dated 16.04.1992 as Ex.B.11 and certified copies of the Pahani Patrikas from the years 1971-72 to 1991- 92 as Exs.B.27 to B.37. Indisputably, Krishna Reddy has shown the land, which covers the suit schedule property in his declaration. Ex.B.22 is the land ceiling declaration filed by Krishna Reddy. Balakista Reddy, through whom Artham Jangaiah claiming the property, has also filed land ceiling declaration, certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.B.23. Balakista Reddy has not shown this land in his declaration, in which case, the contention of the appellant that Balakista Reddy got title over the property and he purchased the same under a sada sale deed does not hold water. With regard to non- impleadment of Krishna Reddy as a party to the proceedings, it is not the case of the Vijayalaxmi that Krishna Reddy disputed her title. Therefore, non-impleadment of Krishna Reddy as a party to the suit has no effect. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and found that it is Krishna Reddy who was the original owner of the land and who conveyed the same to Ramulu and Sankaraiah in the year 1977 and thereafter various transactions effected under registered sale deeds. There are no substantial questions of law involved warranting admission of these two Second Appeals. 6. Accordingly, both the Second Appeals are dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st January, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal Nos.664 and 946 of 2010 Date:21st January, 2011