THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL No.983 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2002, in A.S.No.18 of 1996, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 06.11.1996 in O.S.No.642 of 1989 filed by the appellant/plaintiff, passed by the District Munsif, Jagtial. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Second Appeal are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit house bearing No.15-42 of Raikal Village. Defendant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is his henchman. When defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to sell away the suit house, the plaintiff refused to sell the same. Therefore, both the defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff and denied his title over the suit house. On 05.01.1989, the plaintiff had applied for ownership certificate of the suit house in the Gram Panchayat Office at Raikal, but on 13.02.1989, to his utter surprise, he came to know that the suit house was standing in the name of defendant No.1 and that in collusion with the Gram Panchayat staff, defendant No.1 got entered his name in the Gram Panchayat records as the owner of the suit house and hence, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.642 of 1989 before the trial Court for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit house. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaintiff and stating that defendant No.1 purchased the suit house, which formed eastern half portion of the house bearing Gram Panchayat No.13-1(old), from the plaintiff in 1981 for a valid consideration of Rs.90/- under an oral sale and his name was mutated in the Gram Panchayat records of Raikal Village after due enquiry. Two house numbers have been given to the two portions i.e. 15-41 and 15-42 and since the date of purchase, defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit house by paying taxes regularly to the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title of the suit house as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A.1 was marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish his title in respect of the suit house and also the possession as on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed appeal being A.S.No.18 of 1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, and the learned Senior Civil Judge vide his judgment, dated 28.11.2002, dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment, dated 06.11.1996 passed by the trial Court in dismissing O.S.No.642 of 1989. Challenging the same, the present second appeal is filed. 7. The plaintiff urged the following substantial questions of law in the grounds of appeal. 1) Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant, when the appellant admitted the purchase of the suit house by defendant No.1 in the absence of any registered sale deed? 2) Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit, when on admitted facts, it could be improbable for the appellant to sell half portion of the house for Rs.90/-, while the appellant purchased the same for Rs.2,500/-? 3) Whether the judgments of the Courts below suffer from perverse finding of facts? 8. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Second Appeal, this Court has to formulate the substantial question of law in view of the amendment to Section 100 CPC. Unless the substantial question of law is involved, question of admitting the Second Appeal does not arise. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that though the title of the plaintiff was admitted, both the Courts below gave a perverse finding and hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. This being a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit house bearing Gram Panchayat No.15-42 situated at Raikal Village, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that he has got title over the suit house and he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit house. Unless the title is established, he cannot seek the relief of declaration in respect of the suit house. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff does not indicate how he got the property. Similarly, he has not filed any document to show that he has got right, title and interest in respect of the suit house bearing No.15- 42. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he purchased the suit house bearing No.15-41 about 20 years back from one B.Linga Reddy for about Rs.2,500/- and when he purchased two houses, there were two different house numbers viz., 15-41 and 15-42 and that he paid the house tax in respect of the suit house till mutation is effected. Except his oral evidence, he has not filed any document to show that he purchased the suit house from Mr. B.Linga Reddy. 11. P.W.2 is the neighbourer of the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff purchased the suit house from one B.Linga Reddy about 25 years ago and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His evidence also does not show how the plaintiff got title over the suit house. 12. P.W.3 is another neighbourer of the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff purchased the property in question about 14 years back and the partition was effected between him and his son. So, except the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.A.1, a rough sketch of the suit house, there is no other document to show that the plaintiff got title in respect of the suit house. The plaintiff himself failed to establish that he has got right, title and interest in the suit house. The contention that defendant No.1 admitted the title of the plaintiff has no legs to stand. Title can be passed on the admission of the parties. The defendants’ evidence would go to show that defendant No.1 has been paying house tax since 25.11.1980 and that the attested tax receipts would go to show that the suit house stands in the name of defendant No1. The defendants also failed to establish the clear title. Except the oral evidence of defendant No.1 that he purchased the suit house from the plaintiff, there is no other document. However, it is not for the defendants to establish the title in a suit for declaration and possession. As the plaintiff failed to show that he has got title over the suit house, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court also after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court in dismissing the suit. 13. In the absence of any substantial question of law, the question of admission of the Second Appeal does not arise. As no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J 2nd NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni