(Prayer: Appeal under section ----- against ordersThe above named appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal before this Honble Court f Decree dated 18-06-2025 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2022 being aggrieved the Judgment and 3 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division) (FTC) Bapatla, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10-10-2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2019 on the fiie of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnuru.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution Judgment and Decree dated 10-10-2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnuru, which was confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2025 may be of the passed in A.S.No.17 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Division) (FTC) Judge (Senior pending and to Bapatla. disposal of the Second Appeal pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and the circumstances of the proper in case.)

1. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, for evicting the appellant herein and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the appellant, and any person claiming through her, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, of the respondent, over the house property, which is described in the schedule to the suit. The said property is a tiled house in an extent of 184.5 sq.yards bearing D.No.4-34 of in Brahmanakoduru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

2. The case of the respondent was that the appellant herein had sold the said property to the respondent, for a valid sale consideration of Rs.6,35,000/-, under a deed of sale which was registered as document No.1854 of 2015, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Manthenavaripalem, on 19.11.2015. The further case of the respondent was that, the respondent permitted the appellant to continue in possession of the property, at her request, as she needed time to secure suitable accommodation for herself. However, this concession given by the respondent was sought to be misused by the appellant who refused to vacate the premises despite various requests made by the respondent. The immediate cause for the filing of the suit is said to be the action of the appellant in openly proclaiming in the village that she would not allow the respondent or any person calming through the respondent into the property.

3. The appellant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. In the written statement, the appellant stated that she had never offered to sell the property nor had the respondent purchased the property. The appellant contended that she had approached one Sri K. Nageswara Rao for a loan of Rs.75,000/- on deposit of title deeds of the property. However, Sri K. Nageswara Rao while lending her that amount insisted on a registered mortgage deed, as security, for the said amount, in favour of the respondent who is his friend. The appellant further contended that she had implicitly believed Sri K. Nageswara Rao and had executed the document without verifying the contents. She further stated that she was under the impression that she was executing a registered mortgage deed and was astonished about the fraud and misrepresentation of the respondent and Sri K. Nageswara Rao. It is also stated, in the written statement, that she had sought to redeem the mortgage, but Sri K. Nageswara Rao and the respondent threatened her with dire consequences and refused to allow her to redeem the property. A question of the capacity of the respondent to purchase the property was also raised. The respondent examined three witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.3 and marked the registered deed of sale dated 19.11.2015 as Exs.A1. The appellant examined two witnesses named D.Ws.1 & D.Ws.2 and marked two exhibits named Exs.B1 & B2 consisting of house tax payment receipts and electrical payment receipts. The respondent examined himself as P.W.1, the 1st attestor, of Ex.A1 registered deed of sale, as P.W.2 and the scribe of Ex.A1 as P.W.3. The Trial Court had held that the evidence of the witnesses for the respondent was not shaken in cross-examination and the said evidence was believable.

4. The appellant has examined herself as D.W.1. In the course of the cross-examination, she had stated that she had executed Ex.A1 deed of sale and that she had, upon being asked by the sub registrar whether she had received the entire consideration, stated that she had in fact received the amount. The Trial Court, in view of the said admission, had held that her admission was sufficient to hold that she had executed Ex.A1 knowing the fact that the said document was a deed of sale. The Trial Court also took into account the further admission by D.W.1 that she had not repaid the said amount of Rs.75,000/-, which she claimed had been given to her as loan. As a result, O.S.No.14 of 2019 came to be allowed by judgment/decree, dated 10.10.2022. Aggrieved by this judgment/decree, the appellant moved A.S.No.17 of 2022 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla. The Appellate Judge agreed with the views of the Trial Court, essentially on the same grounds, and had dismissed the appeal by judgment/decree, dated 18.06.2025.

5. Aggrieved by the said decree/judgment dated 18.06.2025, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal.

6. Though, Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the appellant raised issues, on the question of facts, the essential ground raised, in the Second Appeal was that the suit itself was not maintainable as it was a suit filed only for bare recovery of possession without a prayer for declaration of title. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that once title is disputed, a suit for mere injunction or for recovery of the possession is not maintainable.

7. As far as the question of facts are concerned, this Court is in agreement with the views expressed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and does not find any reason to interfere with any of these findings.

8. The issue of maintainability of the suit remains. In the normal course, this Court would have look into the issue raised by the appellant. However, it cannot be said that a denial of title, automatically requires the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and recovery of the possession. In the present case, the denial of the title can be rejected at a prima facie stage in view of the execution of the deed of sale. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any question of law that requires adjudication by this Court, much less substantial question of law.

9. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.