(Prayer: Appeal under section ----- against ordersthe above named Appellants beg to present this Memorandum of Grounds in Second Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dt 02.07.2025 in A.S.No. 211 of 2024 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dt 21.03.2023 in O.S.No. 264 of 2020 in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for the following grounds among other

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 condone delay of 107 days in representing the second appeal in S.A..No. 343 of 2026 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

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 stay of judgment and decree dt 21.03.2023 in O.S.No.264 of 2020 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Narasaraopet pending the disposal of second appeal and pass)

1. The 1st respondent herein had initiated O.S.No.264 of 2020 against the appellants, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the appellants and persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property described in the schedule to the suit. The property described in the schedule was an extent of 60.05 sq.yards of land bearing D.No.681/C1 of Yallamanda Village.

2. The case of the 1st respondent was that an extent of 121 sq. yards of land was purchased, by the 1st appellant, from Sri D. Rama Krishna, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 05.03.2002. Later, the 1st appellant sold an extent of 60.05 sq. yards of land, which is the suit schedule property, to Sri K. Prasad Rao, by way of a deed of sale, dated 12.12.2011. The 1st respondent purchased this land from Sri K. Prasad Rao, by way of a registered deed of sale dated 08.03.2019. Subsequently, the 1st appellant started pressurizing the 1st respondent to sell the said property back to him as he had sold the property earlier on account of need of money, at that time, and was now interested in purchasing the said property back. The 1st respondent further contended that the appellants 1 & 2 were interfering with the attempts of the 1st respondent to clear the waste material on the site so that he could raise an iron sheet roofed shed over the property. On account of these attempts, the 1st respondent is said to have filed the suit.

3. The appellants 1 & 2 are husband and wife. The 1st appellant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd appellant. In the written statement, the 1st appellant stated that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Sri K. Prasad Rao on 12.12.2011 and had executed a registered deed of sale, on that day as security for repayment of the loan and no possession of the land was given. Subsequently, the appellants sold the very same property to the 2nd respondent, with the consent of Sri K. Prasad Rao, by way of a deed of sale, dated 23.07.2018, which was registered as document No.12413/2018 and that the 2nd respondent was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further alleged, in the written statement, that the sale proceeds from the sale of such property was used to repay the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sri K. Prasad Rao and that interest of about Rs.30,000/- remains due. It is contended that on account of the balance interest amount, Sri K. Prasad Rao was refusing to execute a deed of cancellation of the 1st sale deed and had deliberately executed a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent herein. The Appellants came to know about this document only after summons has been received, in O.S.No.264 of 2020. Apart from this, the 1st appellant also stated that he had taken another loan of Rs.61,000/- from one Sri C. Anjaneyulu with interest at rate of 36% per annum by executing a registered deed of sale in favour of Sri C. Anjaneyulu on 30.10.2013, in relation to the remaining part of his property and the same was cancelled by Sri C. Anjaneyulu, after repayment of the said loan by way of a document dated 14.05.2018. The 1st appellant contends that the 1st transaction between him and Sri K. Prasad Rao was also of a similar nature and it was not an actual deed of sale.

4. The 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and other four witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The 1st appellant was examined himself as D.W.1 and 2 more witnesses were examined as D.W.2 & D.W.3 and marked as Exs.B1 to B7. The Trial Court after completion of the Trial, had heard both sides and held that the property had been delivered to Sri K. Prasad Rao, by the 1st appellant and subsequently by Sri K. Prasad Rao to the respondent herein, under the deeds of sale dated 12.12.2011 as well as 08.03.2019. The 1st appellant contended that the possession had never been delivered and remained with him. In order to prove this contention, the 1st appellant produced certain photographs disclosing a zinc shed and a hut said to be in the property and house tax receipts and electrical consumption charge receipts of the zinc shed. However, this contention of the 1st appellant was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the photographs, house tax receipts and electrical consumption charge receipts etc., produced by the 1st appellant relate to an extent of 60 sq. yards of land which still remained with the 1st appellant after the sale of an extent 60 sq yards to Sri K. Prasad Rao. On this basis, the Trial Court had allowed O.S.No.264 of 2020 by way of a judgment/decree, dated 21.03.2023.

5. Aggrieved by this judgment/decree, the appellants moved A.S.No.211 of 2024 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet. It is also a necessary to mention that, the 3rd defendant, to whom the property is said to have been sold, did not filed an appeal and was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the first appeal and in this appeal. The Appellate Court did not find any reason to differ with the view of the Trial Court, that the appellants were only in possession of 60 sq. yards of land remaining with them after the sale of an extent of 60 sq. yards to Sri K. Prasad Rao and dismissed the appeal by way of a judgment/decree dated 02.07.2025.

6. Aggrieved by this decree/judgment, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal.

7. Heard Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had erred in holding that the photographs, house tax receipts and electrical consumption charge receipts produced by the appellants did not relate to suit schedule property and related to the land which remained with the appellants. He would also contend that the suit itself was not maintainable in the view of the fact that the title of the respondent had been denied and there was a need to file a suit for declaration as well as injunction in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Butchireddy & Ors(AIR 2008 SC 2033).

9. On the facts of the case, this Court is also of the view that the photographs, house tax receipts and electrical consumption charge receipts produced by the appellants relate to the zinc shed raised by the appellants, in the land which remained in their possession, after the sale of 60 sq. yards to Sri K. Prasad Rao. This view is further fortified by the fact that the 2nd respondent who is said to have purchased this property from the 1st appellant did not chose to file either the First appeal or the present Second Appeal and as such, the question of the appellants having any rights over the said land would not arise nor can the appellants have any claim over the said land. In fact, it is the case of the appellants that the land had been sold to the 2nd respondent.

10. On the question of whether a suit for bare injunction was maintainable, it must be seen that a suit for declaration is not necessary in every case where title of plaintiff is denied. A bare denial cannot push the plaintiff into filing a suit for declaration and paying court fee for such purpose. It is only a case where a serious doubt to the title of the property is raised that such a declaration is required. In the present case, this Court does not find any such serious cloud over the title of the respondent. In such circumstances, there is no substantial question of law that arises out of the queries in the case which requires a consideration by this Court.

11. 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.