HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Second Appeal Nos.480, 485 and 486 of 1999 Tuesday this the 23rd day of November, 2010. S.A.No.480 of 1999: Between Chandrarajupalli Laxmaiah (Died) and 12 others ... Appellants/Respondents/Defendants and Varikalu Bangaraiah (Died) and 6 others ... Respondents/Appellants/Plaintiffs S.A.No.485 of 1999: Between Chandrarajupalli Laxmaiah (Died) and 8 others ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs and Varikalu Bangaraiah (Died) and 11 others ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants S.A.No.486 of 1999: Between Chandrarajupalli Laxmaiah (Died) and 8 others ... Appellants/Respondents/Plaintiffs and Varikalu Bangaraiah (Died) and 9 others ... Respondents/Appellants/Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Second Appeal Nos.480, 485 and 486 of 1999 Common Judgment: These three second appeals are connected and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2. Since both parties had filed the suits against each other for the sake of convenience, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.167 of 1981 who are the appellants in these second appeals are referred to as “the appellants”. Similarly, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.166 of 1981 who are the respondents in these appeals are for the sake of convenience referred to as “the respondents” for all purposes. While the appellants claim that they are cultivating tenants of the suit schedule land in O.S.No.167 of 1981, the respondents claim that they are also cultivating tenants of the estate holder, which is the schedule land in O.S.No.166 of 1981. The appellants claim that while they were cultivating tenants the estate holders sold the schedule land to them under Ex.B-1 dated 14-6-1973 and based on that, they sought permanent injunction against the respondents in their suit O.S.No.167 of 1981. Similarly, the respondents herein also filed suit O.S.No.166 of 1981 for permanent injunction against the appellants on the basis of the registered Relinquishment Deed Ex.A-3 dated 29-10-1974 claimed to have been executed in their favour by the estate holders. In the said suits after the pleadings were filed by the respective parties, the trial court framed the following issues in O.S.No.166 of 1981: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for ? (2) To what relief ? 3. Similarly, in O.S.No.167 of 1981 the trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit ? (3) To what relief ? 4. Joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in O.S.No.166 of 1981 and on consideration of the evidence, the trial court dismissed both the suits. The said decree is questioned in A.S.No.4 of 1984 by the appellants and A.S.Nos.3 and 5 of 1984 by the respondents herein before the lower appellate court and by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court, both the appeals filed by the respondents herein i.e., A.S.Nos.3 and 5 of 1984 have been allowed granting permanent injunction in their favour, whereas the appellants’ appeal A.S.No.4 of 1984 was dismissed. Questioning the same, these three appeals are preferred by the appellants. 5. After hearing both the learned counsel appearing on either side and after perusing the record, it was noticed that these appeals were admitted on 30-11-1999 after hearing both sides. But, apparently, formulation of substantial question of law is not found in the order of admission. Both the learned counsel state that after elaborate arguments the appeals were reserved and later admitted and it may be by inadvertence that formulation of the substantial question of law was not done. I am, therefore, constrained to formulate the substantial questions of law under sub clause (5) of Section 100 of CPC, which are as follows: (1) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the findings of the trial court without dealing with the reasoning given by the trial court ? and (2) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is perverse as it has failed to take into consideration the exhibited documents showing possession of the appellants and drawing proper inference therefrom ? 6. Both the learned counsel have made elaborate submissions but considering that both the cross suits i.e., one filed by the appellants and the other filed by the respondents being suits for injunction simplicitor, the legality and validity of the title documents claimed by either of the parties as mentioned above and the respective rights claimed thereunder have been incidentally adjudicated by the lower appellate court. For instance, the lower appellate court has stated in paragraph No.38 that the appellants’ sale deed Ex.B-1 is a created document to cause hurdle to the respondents and that at the same time it had upheld the respondents’ document Ex.A-3. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contends that neither there was any issue during the trial of the suits nor any such point was framed by the lower appellate court with respect to the legality and validity of the title documents of respective parties, but, however, finding has been reached by the lower appellate court. 7. I find considerable force in the submission in view of the fact that both the suits are one for injunction and the possession claimed by the respective parties however, legality of title of either of the parties under the respective documents did not fell for consideration directly and it was only incidental aspect, which was discussed in the impugned judgments. The issues framed by the trial court are already extracted above. Similarly, even the lower appellate court had framed the following point for determination in all the appeals: Whether the appellants in A.S.Nos.3 and 5 of 1984 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or the respondents in A.S.Nos.3 and 5 of 1984 or the appellant in A.S.No.4 of 1984 is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suits ? 8. It would be evident from the issues framed by the trial court and the point framed by the lower appellate court for consideration that the only germane aspect which fell for consideration is whether the appellants were in possession or whether the respondents were in possession and on finding that the respondents were in possession the suit filed by the respondents was decreed whereas that of the appellants was dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants made several submissions regarding the title claimed by the appellants on the basis of Ex.B-1 registered Sale Deed dated 14-6-1973. However, in a suit of this nature adjudication of relative title among the parties is not warranted and the only issue as rightly framed by the lower appellate court was as to who among the parties were in possession of the schedule property as on the date of the suit ? In that view of the matter, I am unable to appreciate or accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants so far as the title aspect is concerned. After perusing the entire record and the impugned judgment, I am satisfied that the procedure adopted by the lower appellate court and the inference drawn from the documents is fully justified and the impugned judgment being neither perverse nor vitiated by any error, the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the appellants and all the appeals consequently are liable to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. This will, however, do not preclude the appellants from instituting the appropriate legal proceedings if they so desire, seeking adjudication of their title, in accordance with law. 10. The second appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR 23rd November, 2010. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Second Appeal Nos.480, 485 and 486 of 1999 (Common Judgment) 23rd November, 2010.