1. Heard Sri Rohan Aloor, learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.14 of 2023, dated 10.06.2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.101 of 2011 dated 17.03.2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Mahabubnagar.

3. The Respondent No. 1 originally filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the appellants herein and respondents 2 to 6 with respect to property consisting of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.00 Gts. out of Ac.9.33 Gts. in Sy.No.154/2 situated at Yenugonda Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. The Respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed from appellant Nos.2 and 8, respondent No.3 and fathers of some of the appellants/respondent Nos.2 to 6, who were occupants of the suit land. The suit schedule property is Inam land. The respondent No.1 secured occupancy rights certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar after due enquiry. The respondent No.1 claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since its purchase. The revenue authorities have issued title deed and pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule property. In the year 2002, when there was interference from appellant No.8, father of respondent No.4 along with their associates, the respondent No. 1 filed suit in O.S.No.240 of 2002 seeking perpetual injunction and said suit was decreed. Thereafter, in the year 2006, respondent No.1 obtained permission from Yenugonda Grampanchayath for construction of compound wall around the suit schedule property along with a room meant for use by a watchman. The construction of compound wall and a room for watchman was meant for preventing encroachment from others i.e., to protect the land from land grabbers. While things stood thus, the daughter of Respondent No.1 completed her MBBS education from Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad and went to United States of America for super specialisation. At that time, Respondent No.1 obtained bank loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Padmavathi Colony Branch, Mahaboobnagar for funding her daughter's education by submitting the title deeds of the suit schedule property as security. On account of financial problems, respondent No.1 could not raise the compound wall from ground level to upper level.

4. The respondent No. 1 got a borewell dug and also obtained electricity connection to the suit schedule property. The respondent No.1 was not residing locally and taking advantage of the absence of respondent No.1, the appellants herein and respondent Nos.2 to 6 made attempts to occupy the suit schedule property. The respondent No.1 resisted such attempts. However, the police did not take any action though complaint was given. In the circumstances, suit for perpetual injunction was filed to safeguard the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit schedule property.

5. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein have filed written statement denying the case of respondent No. 1 with respect to her ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the appellants have expressed shock and surprise over grant of occupancy rights certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar in favour of respondent No.1 with respect to suit schedule property. According to the appellants, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued occupancy rights certificate in favour of respondent No.1 without putting the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 on notice. Therefore, the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are contemplating to prefer an appeal challenging the issuance of occupancy rights certificate in favour of respondent No.1.

6. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 claim that respondent No.1 is not in possession of the suit schedule property and that appellant No.8 and father of respondent No.4 were not aware of suit in O.S.No.240 of 2002, which was filed against them. Further, the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 contended that the total extent of land in Sy.No.154/2 is Ac.9.33 Gts. without any subdivision numbers. Said survey number also has large number of pattadars and their names are not shown separately in the revenue records. There is no basis for the boundaries shown by respondent No.1 in the registered sale deed and the same are imaginary. In fact, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are entitled for issuance of occupancy right certificate and the decree in O.S.No.242 of 2002 is not binding on them. In view of the foregoing, the appellants have sought dismissal of the suit filed by respondent No.1. 7. The Trial Court upon perusing the pleadings of both the parties had settled the following issues:

               1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit land?

               2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

               3. To what relief?

8. The respondent No.1 got herself examined PWs 1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A13 in support of her case. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 got examined DWs.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B3.

9. The Trial Court examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and the appellants herein for granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1. The Trial Court examined the oral documentary evidence in detail, more particularly, the cross-examination of each of the witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 and the DWs 1 to 4 for ascertaining the truth in the version presented by respondent No.1 on one hand and the appellants, respondent Nos.2 to 6 on the other hand.

10. The Trial Court particularly observed that there is admission by DW1 that they never obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate and he does not know whether respondent No.1 obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate. The Trial Court further observed that there is no evidence in favour of the appellants to show possession in their favour. Further, it is observed that respondent No.1 has not only produced the Occupancy Rights Certificate in her favour, but has also produced the registered sale deed and documentary evidence in Exs.A11 to A13 to demonstrate her possession. Except for denying the case of respondent No.1, the appellants did not produce any evidence in support of their case of ownership as legal heirs of the original Inamdars or as possessors. It was observed that the appellants have claimed their intention of preferring an appeal against the ORC issued in favour of respondent No.1 under Ex.A4, however, no evidence is produced to support such contention. Further, it is observed that the pahanies marked by the appellants under Exs.A11, A12 and A13 for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 2010-11 have shown respondent No.1 as pattadar of suit schedule property. Ironically, the Exs.B1 to B3 Pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 also show respondent No.1 as pattadar of the suit land. It is also observed that as per all the pahanies, respondent No.1 is shown to be the pattadar and occupant of a plot and not agricultural land.

11. In view of the foregoing evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 21 have preferred First Appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Mahaboobnagar vide A.S.No. 14 of 2023. Said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court leading to filing of the present Second Appeal.

12. In Second Appeal, the appellants have raised the following substantial questions of law:

               1.Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court committed any error while giving findings to the issues framed?

               2.Whether on facts, the Plaintiff/Respondent ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title before seeking a relief of injunction against the Appellants, when the Appellants herein have specifically raised a cloud on the Plaintiff's/Respondent’s title and the possession over the suit schedule property?

               3.Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable when there is a dispute with respect to the title of the property and when a Civil Revision Petition with respect to the grant of ORC in favour of the respondent is pending before the Hon'ble High Court?

               4.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent herein was able to make out a prima facie case and prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and thereby entitled for a relief of permanent injunction?

13. The appellants have raised the above mentioned substantial questions of law to challenge the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court for granting perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.1. For any Second Appeal to be entertained under Section 100 of CPC, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowda ((2025) 5 SCC 442), there need to be substantial question of law and not just question of law to be raised. Alternatively, as per judgment of this Court in case between Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi (2024 SCC OnLine TS 186) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki ((2007) 1 SCC 546), the judgments of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have to be perverse on account of giving the findings on the basis of evidence which is not relevant or evidence which is not adduced.

14. The judgment and findings of the Trial Court have to be examined in the backdrop of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to entertainment of a Second Appeal by this Court under Section 100 of CPC. With respect to substantial question of law at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, it is seen that there is oral evidence of respondent No.1 (PW1) herself reiterating the facts of the case i.e. background facts leading to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction. In addition, respondent No.1 got examined PW2 to prove her possession. In response, the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 have examined DW1 to DW4. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 did not discredit the version presented by PW1 and PW2.

15. Coming to the documentary evidence, it is seen that Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1984, Ex.A2 is the true copy of proceedings issued by RDO, Mahabubnagar vide File No.K/4474/1992, dated 28.01.1995, Ex.A3 is the true copy of Occupancy Rights Certificate issued by the Administrative Office, RDO, Mahabubnagar, dated 28.01.1995, Ex.A4 is the original title deed and Ex.A5 is the original pattadar pass book. The aforementioned documents are exhibited by respondent No.1 to prove her title to the suit schedule property. It is seen that while respondent No.1 has exhibited both the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1984 under Ex.A1 and the true copy of Occupancy Rights Certificate under Ex.A3, there is no title deed in favour of the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6.

16. The appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are claiming to be the legal heirs of the original Inamdars, but have not produced any evidence in proof of their ownership or the ownership of their forefathers over the suit schedule property. The only documents produced by the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are Ex.B1 to B3 certified copies of pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10. Said pahanies, instead of supporting the case of the appellants and respondents 2 to 6, support the case of respondent No.1 both with respect to ownership as well as possession. The certified copies of Pahanies marked under Exs.B1 to B3 by the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 clearly demonstrate that the name of respondent No.1 is recorded as pattadar as well as possessor of the suit schedule property. Further, the suit schedule property as per pahanies marked under Exs.B1 to B3 are not shown to be agricultural land but is shown to be divided into plots. Thus, when the aspect of title is considered, it is seen that the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 is more credible compared to the evidence adduced by the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6.

17. With respect to the title of respondent No.1 as a purchaser from the successor in interest of the original Inamdar, the learned counsel for appellants has relied upon judgment of this Court in case between Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and others (2023 (1) ALD 83 (TS) (FB)), wherein, it is held as below:

               “3. While in B. Ramender Reddy' and others vs. District Collector, Hyderabad and others [1993 (2) An.W.R. 84 (DB)], the Division Bench held that the Inamdar has no right to alienate a land already vested in the State, in S.Veera Reddy and another v. Chetlapali Chandraiah and others [MANU/AP/0310/1994], another Division Bench held that such alienation is valid and enforceable by the subsequent purchaser to secure ORC. This is the conflict of opinion that requires consideration and resolution.

               4. The issue for consideration is whether a purchaser of inam land from Inamdar after 20.07.1955 would acquire right to claim ORC? Incidental issue for consideration would be whether the purchaser of inam land qualifies as a 'successor-in-interest' to Inamdar?

58. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under:

               (2) We hold that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor-in-interest and can not apply for ORC.”

18. The above judgment has discussion about the right of Inamdar to alienate the land which was already vested in the State and the issue of whether a purchaser of land i.e. Inam land qualifies as successor in interest to the Inamdar. This question after a detailed discussion was decided against such purchaser i.e. it is held that purchaser of land from an Inamdar is not a successor in interest and cannot apply for ORC. By citing the aforementioned judgment, the counsel for appellants sought to negate the case of respondent No.1 about having title to the suit schedule property.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that respondent No.1’s title is defective as she is claiming to have purchased the land from their forefathers who are original Inamdars.

20. Accepting for a moment that the title of respondent No.1 is defective, the appropriate course of remedy for the appellants would be to seek declaration of title to the suit schedule property. In the present suit, even in case the issue of title and the defects thereof are raised, when respondentNo.1 produced Exs.A1 to A4 in proof of title and there is no single document in favour of the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 6, the title of respondent No.1 cannot be looked into to deny her the relief of perpetual injunction.

21. Now coming to the aspect of proof of possession, respondent No.1 has produced Ex.A6-Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.240 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, Ex.A5-Original Pattadar pass book, Ex.A7-Grampanchayath permission along with approved plan No.86, dated 10.07.2006 issued by Executive Officer, Yenugonda, Ex.A8-Bank Voucher, Ex.A9-Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A10-Encumbrance Certificate and Exs.A11 to A13 Pahanies for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 2010-11. The Ex.A5 is meant for proving that on the basis of the registered sale deed/Ex.A1 and the occupancy rights certificate/Ex.A3, the Revenue Authorities have issued pattadar passbook for the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.1. The Ex.A6 proves that respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction when one of the appellants' forefather has interfered with the suit schedule property and that the suit was decreed in favour finding her to be in possession of the suit schedule property.

22. Further Ex.A7-Grampanchayath permission shows that the Grampanchayath has given her permission for construction in the suit schedule property. The Bank voucher-Ex.A8 and Encumbrance certificates/Exs.A9 and A10 show the suit transaction which is in favour of respondent No.1 and the Exs.A11 to A13 Pahanis for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 2010-11 show the name of respondent No.1 as both patadar as well as possessor. In addition, as already discussed, Exs.B1 to B3 Pahanis for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 also show the name of respondent No.1 as pattadar as well as possessor. Thus, the entire documentary evidence produced both by respondent No.1 as well as appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 go to show that the name of respondent No.1 is registered as the possessor of the suit schedule property.

23. In the face of the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, it is not to be lost sight of that the appellants herein are merely challenging the possession of respondent No.1, but have not produced credible evidence in support of their case of being in possession. In case the appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are in possession of the property, then it is for them to produce evidence to prove the same. While so, the evidence produced in the form of Exs.B1 to B3 is nothing but a denial of their own case and support to the case of respondent No.1.

24. In view of the documentary evidence which supports the case of respondent No.1 of having title as well as possession, the Trial Court has decreed the suit with costs in favour of respondent No.1. When the appellants carried the matter in appeal to the First Appellate Court vide A.S.No.14 of 2023, said Court while discussing the evidence adduced by both the parties has confirmed the findings given by the Trial Court with respect to title and the possession of respondent No.1 over the suit schedule property and dismissed the appeal, i.e. there is no substance in the substantial questions of law at Sl.Nos.1 to 3.

25. When two Courts have given a factual finding holding that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, it is not open before this Court in a Second Appeal to give any finding contrary to the factual finding given by both the courts i.e. the First Appellate Court and the Trial court. In fact, when the documentary evidence discussed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is examined, there is nothing to come to a finding that the findings of said courts are based on considering irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence. Rather, the findings of both the courts are on the basis of the documents exhibited by both the parties and sound appreciation of the entries made therein, i.e. the substantial question of law at Sl.No.4 has no basis and cannot come to the aid of appellants for entertaining a Second Appeal.

26. Once the possession of the property is found to be in favour of respondent No.1, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the title cannot be examined. In the present Second Appeal, the singular issue that is emphasised vehemently is the defect in title of respondent No.1. However, in a suit for perpetual injunction, when prima facie case of possession is proven and interference is proven, the balance of convenience is held to be in favour of the possessor and thus, perpetual injunction has to be granted. In the instant case, since possession of suit schedule property was found to be in favour of respondent No.1, perpetual injunction was granted. Assuming for a moment, there is any defect in the title of respondent No.1, the same cannot be examined in the suit filed by her seeking perpetual injunction. The proper course available to the appellants would be to challenge the title of respondent No.1 by filing a suit for declaration. Without taking such a recourse, denying her title without challenging the ORC issued in favour of respondent No.1 would be of no avail. Until the ORC granted in favour of respondent No.1 and the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1 under Ex.A1 are set aside, the title of respondent No.1 cannot be challenged. Hence, on this count too, the appellants have no case to challenge the findings given by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in favour of respondent No.1.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the case of appellants for entertaining a Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC and the same is liable to be dismissed.

28. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Second Appeal, shall stand closed.