1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 09.07.2024 in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

2. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, with a prayer for declaration of title of the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and for costs.

3. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.214 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

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 plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.214 of 2010, is as follows:

                  The plaintiffs pleaded that they are the joint owners and possessors of tiled house and site bearing Assessment No.30 situated in Kummarilova Village and the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and since 50 and 60 years the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property without any obstructions whatsoever. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they are also paying electrical charges in the name of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant’s mother by name Mutyalamma is the sister of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant is in no way concerned with the plaint schedule property.

                  The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant took advantage of the loneliness of the plaintiffs and somehow managed and played fraud and mutated his name in the Panchayat records for some period and the plaintiffs came and reported the fraud played by the defendant to the Panchayat officials, whereby, after due enquiry, the defendant’s name was deleted and thereafter, the tax receipts were issued in the name of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant without having any title over the schedule property, issued a legal notice dated 09.09.2009 and claimed possession of the plaint schedule property alleging that the plaintiffs are lessees under him. The plaintiffs further pleaded that after receipt of the said notice, they issued a reply notice dated 14.09.2009 and they specifically asserted their title and possession of the plaint schedule property and denied the landlord and tenancy relationship as alleged in the notice of the defendant. Hence, the present suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

                  The defendant pleaded that the suit schedule property originally belonged to him and he got the same through his father and he is enjoying the property for more than 16 years by paying taxes etc., and he got another house in Kummarilova Colony, and at the request made by the plaintiffs, the defendant leased out the same to the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- about four years ago. The defendant further pleaded that he issued a registered legal notice dated 09.09.2009, calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the arrears of rent of six (06) months and to vacate the premises. The defendant further pleaded that after receiving the said notice, the plaintiffs got issued a reply notice with false allegations and they have created the present suit to have wrongful gain and also to cause wrongful loss to the defendant under the guise of the suit documents in their favour, which are concocted and fabricated by the plaintiffs. The defendant further pleaded that the possession of the plaintiffs is only as the tenants, but not as the owners and the Panchayat is a necessary party to arrive at a just decision in the matter and non-adding of necessary parties to this suit is bad in law and requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, framed the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the plaintiffs are having valid legal title over the plaint schedule property?

                  2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration of right as claimed for?

                  3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?

                  4) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, 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 plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

                  1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of the plaint schedule property and consequential injunction as prayed for?

                  2. Whether the trial Court has committed any illegality or irregularity in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.214 of 2010, dated 17.07.2017, passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tuni, and there by this Court warrants interference with the findings and observations made by the trial Court while delivering the judgment, dated 17.07.2017?

                  3. To what relief?

11. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the plaintiffs with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.214 of 2010 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

12. On hearing learned counsel for the appellants at the time of admission of the second appeal on 26.06.2025, this Court admitted the second appeal and framed the following substantial question of law:

                  1) Whether the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit basing on the merely narrated the oral evidence and the tax receipts, filed by the defendant, ignoring the physical possession of Appellants in schedule property by paying charges to the electricity departments?

                  2) Whether the courts below are justified in dismissed the suit and confirmed the same, ignoring the long physical possession with the appellants and without filing any documents by the Respondent herein?

                  3) Whether verdicts of the both Courts, ignoring the lies completely basing on physical possession of the appellants and enjoyment by constructing the house and living therein more than 69 years. In such scenario dismissal of the suit and appeal is justified or not?

13. Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri G.Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.

14. 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.”

15. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that both the Courts below failed to consider the physical possession of the appellants in the suit schedule property. As could be seen from the material on record, the appellants approached the Civil Court for granting relief of declaration of title to the immovable property in respect of the vacant site to an extent of 100 sq. yards and a tiled house therein. The very basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that they have been in possession of the plaint schedule property for more than fifty (50) years from their ancestors and it is their ancestral property. No documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove that they are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since fifty (50) years. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.214 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni. The appellant No.1 is none other than the mother of the appellant Nos.2 to 4.

16. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the plaintiff No.2, P.W.2 is the third party and both the witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property which belongs to the paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 by name Dalaiah. As could be seen from Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5, it was mentioned that the schedule property is the Streedhana property of the plaintiff No.1. Therefore, it is evident that Ex.A-4 and Ex.A-5 are quite contrary to the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Except filing the tax receipts, electricity bills and the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat/Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3, no other documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to establish their title in the suit schedule property. As seen from Ex.A-1, those tax receipts are in the name of the defendant and there are corrections in Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 and in Ex.A-3 also the name of the defendant is stricken off for the assessment No.321 and the name of the plaintiff No.1 got mentioned. In order to disprove the aforesaid suspicious circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to examine the official of the Gram Panchayat as witness. Moreover, P.W.1 and P.W.2 reiterated in their evidence that the suit schedule property belongs to the paternal grandfather of P.W.1 by name Parvada Dalaiah and after the death of Dalaiah, the property devolved upon his children. But, the plaintiffs did not file any document to show that the suit schedule property is in the name of their paternal grandfather or the father of P.W.1.

17. As noticed supra, the appellants filed a suit for declaration of title of ownership in respect of the plaint schedule immovable property. Therefore, the burden always lies on the appellants to make out and establish the clear case for granting such declaration and the weaknesses if any, of the case set up by the defendant could not be a ground to grant the relief to the plaintiffs. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors., Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

                  “The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title could succeed only on the strength of his own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it or on the plaintiffs, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against them, in the absence of establishment of plaintiffs own title, plaintiffs must be non-suited.”

18. To disprove the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1. As per his evidence, he let out the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for a rent of Rs.300/- per month and the plaintiffs have to pay the rent of six (06) months, in view of the default of payment of rent committed by the plaintiffs, the defendant got issued a legal notice to the plaintiffs, demanding them to pay the rent and after receipt of the notice, the plaintiffs got issued a reply notice. The defendant relied on house tax receipts along with demand notices that are five (05) in numbers, which relates to the year 2005 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2014. Those documents are marked as Ex.B-1. The defendant also got marked the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the Village as Ex.B-2.

19. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge as well as the learned first appellate Judge arrived at concurrent finding and dismissed the suit for declaration of title filed by the plaintiffs. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. The present case does not come within the ambit of aforesaid exceptions as stated supra.

20. In the case at hand, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for declaration of title 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.

21. 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. I.A.No.1 of 2024:

22. The petitioners/appellants filed this petition to receive the Xerox copies of the document viz. (1) Wedding card of the appellant No.4 dated 21.05.2005, (2) Copy of the Form-II of allotment of Shop to J.Seetha Mahalakshmi, Kummarilova, Authorization No.47/Tuni/1996, (3) Electricity bill copy dated 04.07.2024, (4) Copy of the Telephone Demand Notice dated 10.08.1998, (5) 3 copies of Electricity bills of the years 2002 & 2003, (6) Occupancy Certificate issued by the Panchayat, dated 17.02.1988, (7) Wedding Card of the appellant No.3, dated 16.06.1995, as additional evidence.

23. Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

                  Order XLI- APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES:

                  Rule 27:- Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. - (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if-

                  (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

                  [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]

                  (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

                  (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

24. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in the second appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enables the Appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances only. The proviso under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits the party to produce the additional evidence before the Appellate Court provided it has to come under the ambit of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

25. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

                  I. The petitioners pleaded that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, has not given any findings regarding who are in the physical possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing the house. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellants herein filed a regular appeal vide A.S.No.13 of 2018, by raising several legal as well as factual grounds. The petitioners further pleaded that both the Courts have not considered the nature of the suit based on the possession and enjoyment over the property by constructing the house more than six (06) decades back and both the Courts have not given any findings as to who are in the physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The petitioners further pleaded that the appellants are not educated and were not wordly wise people and that some of the documents were not filed by them though they have the knowledge that their elders had obtained the documents like Occupancy Certificate, Wedding Cards, Electricity Bills and allotment of ration shop authorized certificate which indicates that their property is involved in the suit. The petitioners further pleaded that they have recently found some of the documents while cleaning their house and the appellants are requesting this Court to receive the said documents as additional evidence as they are very necessary for adjudicating the matter to meet the ends of justice.

                  II. The petitioners/appellants filed the documents namely (1) Wedding card of the appellant No.4 dated 21.05.2005, (2) Copy of the Form-II of allotment of Shop to J.Seetha Mahalakshmi, Kummarilova, Authorization No.47/Tuni/1996, (3) Electricity bill copy dated 04.07.2024, (4) Copy of the Telephone Demand Notice dated 10.08.1998, (5) 3 copies of Electricity bills of the years 2002 & 2003 to be received as additional evidence. All the aforesaid documents are prior to the institution of the suit itself. The suit for declaration of title is instituted by the plaintiffs before the competent Civil Court in the year 2010. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

26. As stated supra, the aforesaid documents to be received as additional evidence relates to much prior to the institution of the suit itself. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court or during the pendency of the first appeal before the First Appellate Court, the appellants did not venture to file these documents. It is well settled that “in the absence of pleadings, the evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered” and it is also equally well settled that “no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and that all necessary and material facts shall be pleaded by a party in support of the case set up by the party”. Moreover, except bold statement in the affidavit of the petitioner that in view of the illiteracy of the appellants, they could not file the documents enclosed along with the petition either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court, no explanation is offered by the plaintiff about non-filing of these documents either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. The said delay explained by the plaintiffs is not at all justifiable and the said reason cannot be considered in a second appellate stage that too when a party, who approached the Civil Court for seeking relief of declaration of title way back in the year 2010, failed to produce the said evidence either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024, filed by the petitioners.

27. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.568 of 2024 and S.A.No.568 of 2024 are dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Second Appeal shall stand closed.