1. This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 15.06.2018, in A.S.No.66 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 06.06.2013, in O.S.No.316 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the defendants in O.S.No.316 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. The respondent No.1 herein died during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein are added as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.316 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, with a prayer for declaration of plaintiff’s title over suit schedule mentioned property against the defendant No.1, demolition of structures by way of mandatory injunction or alternatively if the defendant Nos.2 to 5 have no title to convey the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff, ordered for refund of amount of Rs.2,60,765/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of realization of the same and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.66 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu. The I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, dismissed the appeal suit, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.316 of 2005, is as follows:

                  The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she has purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant Nos.2 to 5 under registered sale deed dated 12.05.2003, for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-, with specific boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule property and she had spent an amount of Rs.17,500/- towards stamp duty and a sum of Rs.730/- towards registration fee and in total the plaintiff has spent a sum of Rs.1,63,730/-. The plaintiff further pleaded that the husband of the vendor of the plaintiff, who is the father of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1956, bearing document No.1936 of 1956 from Utti Chadrayudu and his wife Utti Roshamma and the said Roshamma in turn purchased the said property from G.Shankaraiah, Seetharamaiah and others under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.1947 vide document No.2332 of 1947 and the Government also granted settlement patta in favour of G.Seetharamaiah and his family members in S.R.No.181/15(1)/69 as per the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, confirming the title over several other lands, including the suit schedule property.

                  The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No.1 had occupied a portion in the suit schedule property and claimed that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.598 of 2003, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, against the defendant and the same is dismissed. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 purchased a piece of site from Bayanna and the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 on 13.06.2003, for which the defendant No.1 gave a reply stating that she obtained permission from the Municipality and raised a pucca building, in a portion of the suit schedule property. Since, the defendant No.1 denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The defendant No.1 filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

                  The defendant No.1 purchased a portion of Plot No.15 under a registered sale deed dated 07.12.1971 from Bayanna. Since the date of purchase, the defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant No.1 pleaded that his vendor, Bayanna, had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.1967. After purchasing the property, the defendant No.1 raised a hut in a portion of the property and constructed a house in the property by taking permission from the Municipality vide B.A.No.62/96G2, dated 16.05.1996. The defendant No.1 has also been paying the municipal, electricity, and telephone charges in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the suit schedule property consists of a vacant site and a house, and she prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. The defendant No.2 filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.3 to 5. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

                  The husband of the defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule property from its rightful owner under a registered sale deed in the year 1956, and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 became the only legal heirs of the husband of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 pleaded that after verifying the title deeds of the schedule property, the plaintiff took possession of the suit schedule property, and the suit is not maintainable without filing a suit for cancellation of sale deed. She prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, framed the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to exemption of paying Court fee?

                  2) Whether vendors of sale deed dated 15.06.1956 have right to alienate the said property?

                  3) Whether the property mentioned in the suit schedule is in existence?

                  4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title to property?

                  5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for demolition of structures made therein?

                  6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled in alternative for refund of Rs.2,60,765/-?

                  7) Whether the suit was instituted collusively by plaintiff/defendant No.1?

                  8) Whether the suit is maintainable without a relief of cancellation of sale deed in favour of husband of defendant No.2?

                  9) Whether defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 are entitled for exemplary costs? and

                  10) To what relief?

10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked.

11. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.66 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

                  1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title in the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction, and alternatively if the defendants 2 to 5 have not title to convey the suit schedule property, for refund of sale amount from the defendants 2 to 5 as prayed for?

                  2) Whether the appellant is entitled for setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.316 of 2005, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, dated 06.06.2013?

12. The learned I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff in O.S.No.316 of 2005 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

13. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the second appeal on 05.07.2021, a learned Judge this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

                  1) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish her better title affirmatively to the suit schedule property and that the 1st defendant made construction in it and said construction is to be demolished by way of mandatory injunction?

                  2) Whether the appellate Court is right in coming to a conclusion that the Exhibits A1 to A21 documents are not inspiring the confidence of this Court insofar as the claim of the plaintiff? Whether the lower appellate Court has rightly interpreted the Exs.A1 and A21 documents and whether the appellate Court below erred in appreciating the construction and proof of the said documents, which are foundation for the right of the plaintiff?

14. Heard Sri Potham Setty Jaya Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8.

15. The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court, which is final Court of facts, except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.

                  In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh(AIR 1993 SC 398), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.”

                  In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar(AIR 1999 SC 471), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.”

16. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Court below came to a wrong conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish her title affirmatively in respect of the plaint schedule property. As seen from the material available on record, the plaintiff herein sought the relief for declaration of plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property against the defendant No.1 and also for demolition of structures by way of mandatory injunction against the defendant No.1 to remove the structures constructed in the disputed Ac.1.50 cents of the plaint schedule site. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff has to prove her title and also title of her vendor. The plaint schedule disputed property is measuring Ac.1.50 cents out of Ac.5.00 cents situated at Papampeta village. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she had purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant Nos.2 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2003, but the vendor of the plaintiff/defendant Nos.2 to 5 contended that the husband of the plaintiff informed them that he verified the possession of the property and the plaintiff and her husband after being satisfied with the title only they purchased the suit schedule property and the defendant Nos.3 to 5 are not liable to pay any amount as mentioned in the plaint. He further contended that the suit for recovery of sale consideration is not maintainable without seeking cancellation of the sale deed. One of the vendors of the plaintiff/defendant No.4 is examined as D.W.3 and he admitted in his evidence in cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that he does not know the boundaries of the suit schedule property as mentioned in Ex.A-2 and they did not get the suit property surveyed before alienating the same to the plaintiff and they sold the vacant site to the plaintiff. He further admits that on the information given by the husband of the plaintiff/P.W.2, they mentioned the survey number of the suit schedule property in Ex.A-1/sale deed of the plaintiff and they did not verify whether the said survey number was correct or not and the boundaries of the suit schedule property were also got mentioned by them. He further admits that since the date of purchase of the property by their father, they kept the suit schedule property vacant and they never enjoyed the same.

17. The vendor of the plaintiff/D.W.3 admits that the dispute in this case is with regard to the house constructed by the defendant No.1. He further admits that in the plaint, it is mentioned that the defendant No.1 constructed the house in the year 1996 and the property that they sold under Ex.A-3 is different from the property, where the defendant No.1 constructed his house in the year 1996. Therefore the evidence of the plaintiff’s vendor is not at all supporting the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has got right and title within the boundaries and extent mentioned in the plaint schedule. Moreover, the plaintiff in her own evidence admits that the property was not delivered to her physically by the vendors and without measuring the property she purchased the same and she purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 2003, before that the defendant No.1 constructed the house and the defendant No.1 constructed the house in the year 1996 and except the said house the defendant No.1 is not having any other house. She further pleaded that by the date of her purchase, the entire property was vacant. In her evidence in chief examination affidavit, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant No.1 claimed the plaint schedule property, which consists of a vacant site and a portion of it is occupied by the defendant No.1 unlawfully in the year 1996 by playing fraud against the Municipality in getting permission. The above own admissions of the plaintiff itself go to show that the defendant No.1 made a construction in the year 1996 after obtaining permission from the Municipality in the year 1996 and later in the year 2003, the plaintiff herein purchased the vacant site of Ac.5.00 cents from the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the year 2003. As stated supra, the vendor of the plaintiff admits in his evidence that he does not know the boundaries of the suit schedule property and on the information furnished by the husband of the plaintiff/P.W.2; they have mentioned the survey number in the suit schedule property in Ex.A-3 and they did not verify whether the said survey number was correct or not. Another important admission made by the vendor of the plaintiff/D.W.3 is that the boundaries of the suit schedule property were also got mentioned by them in Ex.A-3 on the information furnished by the husband of the plaintiff. They further admit that the suit schedule property was never enjoyed by them.

18. As per the own admission of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 made the construction in the year 1996 after obtaining permission from the Municipality.

                  The claim of the plaintiff is that she has purchased the plaint schedule property to a total extent of Ac.5.00 cents on 12.05.2003. The defendant No.1 specifically contended in the written statement itself that he purchased the portion of plot No.5 under the registered sale deed dated 07.12.1971 from one Bayanna under Ex.B-5 original registered sale deed. He further pleaded that the said Bayanna in turn purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 03.04.1967 under Ex.B-6 and the said Bayanna sold Ac.5.00 cents of the property to the defendant No.1 out of Ac.10.00 cents purchased by him. In order to prove the same, the defendant No.1 relied on original registered sale deeds under Ex.B-5 and Ex.B-6. He further pleaded that he has obtained permission from the Municipality dated 10.05.1996, and constructed a house in the property purchased by him. The own admissions of the plaintiff and her vendor/defendant No.4/D.W.3 are not even supporting the case of the plaintiff. The identity of the property is in dispute as per the own admissions of the plaintiff and without measuring the property, she purchased the plaint schedule property and the property was not physically handed over to her. Even as per own admissions of the witness of the vendor of plaintiff/D.W.3, by the date of purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the house of the defendant No.1 is in existence.

19. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record held in its judgment that the electricity, the tap connection and the telephone connection were obtained by the defendant No.1 for his residential house and there is a compound wall around the said house and the structures were raised prior to the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and there is a clear variation in the measurements of the property purchased by the plaintiff from that of the property purchased by the vendor.

20. The material on record clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 made structures in the year 1996, much prior to the purchase of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. As stated supra, as per the own admissions of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 made construction of a house after obtaining permission from the Municipality in the year 1996 and there was an electricity connection to the house of the defendant No.1 and also there is a compound wall to the disputed suit site. The plaintiff also failed to establish that the property in possession of the defendant No.1 included the property purchased by her under Ex.A-3 sale deed. Moreover, the vendor of the plaintiff/D.W.3 admits in his evidence in cross-examination itself that on the information given by the P.W.2/husband of the plaintiff, they have mentioned the survey number to the suit property in Ex.A-3 and they did not verify whether the said survey number was correct or not and the boundaries of the suit property were also mentioned by them in Ex.A-3 on the information given by the P.W.3 and they kept the suit property vacant and never enjoyed the same. He further admits that in the plaint it was mentioned that the defendant No.1 constructed the house in the year 1996 and the dispute in the present case is with regard to the house constructed by the defendant No.1 and the property they sold under Ex.A-3 to the plaintiff is different from the property constructed by the defendant No.1 in the year 1996. Therefore, the aforesaid circumstances clearly goes to show that the identity of the property is in dispute. The plaintiff failed to prove that she is having a valid right and title in the disputed property as mentioned in the plaint schedule property. For the aforesaid reasons, since the plaintiff failed to prove her title in the disputed property, she is not entitled to the primary relief of declaration of title and consequently, she is also not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as sought for.

21. The alternative relief sought by the plaintiff is the refund of advance sale consideration from the defendant Nos.2 to 5. The vendor of the plaintiff i.e. the defendant No.2 pleaded in the written statement itself that the husband of the plaintiff informed them that he had verified the title deed and possession of the suit schedule property and he expressed his intention to purchase the same and the plaintiff and her husband after being satisfied with the title only, they purchased the schedule property and they never suppressed any fact and they never induced the plaintiff to purchase the property as narrated in the plaint and they are not liable to pay the compensation as sought by the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable without seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed. On that ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the defendant Nos.2 to 5.

22. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she purchased the disputed property from the defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the defendant No.1 made construction in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents from out of Ac.5.00 cents and the plaintiff admitted in her evidence in cross-examination itself that there was no contract between her and her vendor to return the sale consideration and in case her vendors are not having any title and she has not filed any suit, to declare her sale deed is null and void and she further admits that her vendors/defendant Nos.2 to 5 got absolute rights in the property sold to the plaintiff. Here, the disputed property is Ac.1.50 cents only and the plaintiff purchased the property of Ac.5.00 cents under the registered sale deed, but the plaintiff failed to establish that the property which is in the possession of the defendant No.1 includes the property purchased by her under Ex.A-3 sale deed. Ex.A-3 sale deed was said to have been executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and admittedly, the plaintiff has not sought any relief of cancellation of the said sale deed, in such case, the plaintiff is not entitled to the refund of the sale consideration as sought for.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that the First Appellate Court has not followed the provisions under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and he relied on a judgment in B.V.Nagesh & another Vs H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy(2010 (7) Supreme Court 438), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “4) How regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate Court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order XLI of C.P.C. deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate Court shall state:

                  a) the points for determination;

                  b) the decision thereon;

                  c) reasons for the decision; and -

                  d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.”

24. In a case of Nafees Ahmad and another Vs. Soinuddin and others(2025 Live Law SC 458), the Apex Court held as follows:

                  " 12. The provisions of Rule 31 should therefore be reasonably construed and should be held to require the various particulars to be mentioned in the judgment only when the appellant has actually raised certain points for determination by the Appellate Court, and not when no such points are raised.

                  13. We must also look into the provisions of Rule 30 of Order 41 for the purpose of fortifying our interpretation of Rule 31. Order 41 Rule 30 CPC reads thus:

                  “30. Judgment when and where pronounced.─ (1) The Appellate Court, after hearing the parties or their pleaders and referring to any part of the proceedings, whether on appeal or in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, to which reference may be considered necessary, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.

                  (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the points for determination, the decision thereon and the final order passed in the appeal are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment, but a copy of the whole judgment shall be made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders immediately after the judgment in pronounced.”

                  14. Thus, this Rule does not make it incumbent on the Appellate Court to refer to any part of the proceedings in the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. The Appellate Court can refer, after hearing the parties and their pleaders, to any part of these proceedings to which reference be considered necessary. It is in the discretion of the Appellate Court to refer to the proceedings. It is competent to pronounce judgment after hearing what the parties or their pleaders submit to it for consideration"

25. As seen from the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has framed the points for determination to decide the first appeal by discussing the evidence of each witness. The First Appellate Court discussed the evidence of each witness and decided the first appeal by giving reasons in its judgment, therefore, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

26. In the case at hand, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record on all issues decided by the trial Court and after framing the points for consideration as required under Section 96 of C.P.C., the learned first appellate Judge rightly dismissed the first appeal. In the light of the material on record and upon earnest consideration now, it is manifest that the substantial questions of law raised in the course of hearing in the second appeal on behalf of the appellants did not arise or remain for consideration. This Court is satisfied that this second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law for determination.

27. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal.