1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 24.09.2021, in A.S.No.34 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 12.07.2018, in O.S.No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.

2. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, with a prayer for declaration of his title over the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and their men, not to interfere with the suit schedule property in any manner and with costs.

3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, dismissed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/defendant No.2 approached this Court by way of second appeal.

4. The appellant herein is the defendant No.2, the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.25 of 2016. During the pendency of the appeal suit, before the trial Court, the defendant No.1 died without any legal heirs.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit O.S.No.105 of 1995.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.25 of 2016, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the plaint schedule property situated in Sy.No.271/A within Guntakal Municipality limits and he purchased the vacant site under a registered sale deed for Rs.8,000/- on 13.04.1994 from the defendant No.1. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.1 also sold the same plaint schedule property to the defendant No.2 by colluding with each other on 30.12.2010 for Rs.1,34,000/- and executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal. He further pleaded that the defendant No.2 in turn mortgaged the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 on 17.09.2012, though he has no right and title over the same. Knowing all the aspects, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, but the same has gone in vain. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

7. The defendant No.1 died without any legal heirs. The case of the defendant No.2 as per the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 is as follows:

                  The defendant No.2 purchased the plaint schedule property from his lawful owner on 13.12.2010 for a valid consideration of Rs.1,34,000/- and since then he was in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of one and all. The defendant No.2 pleaded that for the purpose of approval, he approached the Municipal Authorities and the Commissioner, Guntakal, and concerned authorities have approved the plan for the said site. The defendant No.2 further pleaded that he is having right and title over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has got created and concocted documents and the said documents are not valid and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. The case of the defendant No.3 as per the averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 is as follows:

                  The defendant No.2 was inducted into the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of sale by the defendant No.1 and with valid title and possession, the defendant No.2 entered into a mortgage transaction with him under the registered mortgage deed dated 17.09.2012, for Rs.4,00,000/- and the defendant No.3 has no necessity to take steps against the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. The defendant No.3 pleaded that he filed a suit in O.S.No.340 of 2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, and the same is pending for adjudication, and the plaintiff having knowledge about the pendency of the aforesaid suit, filed the present suit without taking any steps in the mortgage between him and the defendant No.2, as such, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and he prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.

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

                  1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against defendants for declaration of title over the suit schedule property?

                  2) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

                  3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property restraining the defendants as prayed for? and

                  4) To what relief?

10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the defendant No.2, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. Ex.X-1 was also marked.

11. The learned trial Judge 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.34 of 2018, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

                  1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, and title over the suit property and also entitled for consequential permanent injunction as prayed by him?

                  2) Whether there is necessity to interfere with the findings given by the lower court or not?

12. The learned first appellate Judge after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant No.2 in O.S.No.25 of 2016 filed the present second appeal before this Court.

13. On hearing learned counsel for the appellants at the time of admission of the second appeal on 23.03.2022, a learned Judge of this Court, admitted the second appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:

                  1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court s right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court ignoring the evidence on record especially the evidences of the defendants side which clinchingly proves that the schedule property is in possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase under Ex.B.1 registered sale deed dated 13.12.2010 supported by documentary evidence?

                  2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in that its approach is essentially erroneous and its conclusions were founded on surmises and conjectures without any factual or legal basis ignoring and misreading the evidence on record, especially Exs.B.1 to B.4 and Ex.X.1?

14. Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

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. The undisputed facts are that the defendant No.1 was the original owner of the plaint schedule property of vacant site of 133.33 Sq.yds, situated in Sy.No.271/A within Guntakal Municipality limits. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property vacant site to an extent of 133.33 Sq.yds, from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, Ex.A-1, by paying Rs.8,000/- to the original owner of the plaint schedule property/the defendant No.1 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It is undisputed by both parties that the plaint schedule property vacant site originally belongs to the defendant No.1. The case of the defendant No.2 is that he purchased the plaint schedule property vacant site from the same vendor/defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2010, under Ex.B-1 and subsequently, he mortgaged the same to the defendant No.3. The plaintiff contended that he came to know the same when he obtained the encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the First Appellate Court ignored the evidence of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 was inducted into the possession of the plaint schedule property under the registered sale deed under Ex.B-1 on 13.12.2010 and he was the owner of the plaint schedule property. In the case at hand, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court for seeking relief of declaration of title and also consequential injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. Since the plaintiff herein is seeking declaration of title, the burden of proof casts upon the plaintiff to prove the title. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who has based the suit on the registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, to prove the same as to be a valid sale. The suit for relief of declaration of title came to be filed in the year 2016, the plaintiff produced the original registered sale deed and got it exhibited as Ex.A-1, before the trial Court.

18. P.W.2 asserted that even on the date of registration of Ex.A-1, he was present in the Sub-Registrar Office, Guntakal, he also purchased the plot No.98 in the same survey number, himself and the plaintiff used to visit their plots regularly. P.W.3, who is the Sub-Registrar of Guntakal, asserted in his evidence that as per the official records maintained by their office, with regard to Ex.A-1 sale deed, Ex.A-1 sale deed was executed by the defendant No.1 and registered in favour of the plaintiff on 13.04.1994, and Ex.X-1 is the relevant entry in the Book-I, Volume of the Sub-Registrar Office, Guntakal. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property vacant site, under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, by paying valid sale consideration to the defendant No.1. In the present case, the vendor/the defendant No.1 had already transferred his right and title through a prior sale deed under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, to the plaintiff and later the vendor executed Ex.B-1 sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 after sixteen (16) years of the initial transfer under Ex.A-1, without disclosing the earlier sale transaction. Therefore, the defendant No.2 cannot get any right and title from the defendant No.1, by the date of Ex.B-1, because the defendant No.1 had already transferred his right and title to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed.

19. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A-2 encumbrance certificate from 01.01.1983 to 20.02.2011, in the said encumbrance certificate, the Sub-Registrar‟s signature and seal were there. Ex.A-3 is another encumbrance certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal, from 01.01.1986 to 12.11.2015, it goes to show that the defendant No.1 alienated the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, and subsequently, the defendant No.1 sold away the same property to the defendant No.2 on 13.12.2010, under Ex.B-1 sale deed and the defendant No.2 in turn mortgaged the same property to the defendant No.3 on 17.09.2012, for obtaining Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendant No.3. The plaint schedule property is a vacant site; therefore, the question of paying tax to the Guntakal Municipality does not arise. Even, the defendant No.2 also did not rely on any tax receipts. It is not the case of the defendant No.2 that he is paying tax to the Municipality in respect of the plaint schedule property vacant site.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant No.2 produced documentary evidence to prove his possession in the plaint schedule property vacant site. As seen from the material available on record, no scrap of paper was filed by the defendant No.2 to show that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property vacant site, except relying on the encumbrance certificates under Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-3, said to have been obtained from the Sub-Registrar Office. As stated supra, the plaintiff also relied on the encumbrance certificates, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Guntakal, under Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3. Ex.B-4 site approval proceedings said to have been issued by the Municipality, Guntakal, are not at all the conclusive proof of possession of a party in the plaint schedule property vacant site. On production of the sale deed by the defendant No.2, the Municipality, Guntakal, might have granted permission to the defendant No.2 to construct a house, it does not mean that it is conclusive proof of possession of the defendant No.2. It is not at all the case of the appellant that after obtaining permission from the Municipality, the defendant No.2 raised construction in the plaint schedule property vacant site.

21. The plaintiff‟s title is based on the prior registered sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 13.04.1994, under Ex.A-1, after sixteen (16) years of the said sale deed, the defendant No.2 obtained a sale from the same vendor in respect of the same property. It was elicited by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 in cross-examination from P.W.3/the Sub-Registrar that Ex.X-1 does not contain any photographs of the vendor and the vendee. It is not at all the case of the appellant that the plaintiff obtained Ex.A-1 registered sale deed by way of impersonation. It is not in dispute that Ex.A-1 registered sale deed was obtained from the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and the said registered sale deed is dated 13.04.1994. Section 32(a) of the Registration Act was introduced by Act No.48 of 2001, w.e.f., 24.09.2001. As stated supra, Ex.A-1 registered sale deed is dated 13.04.1994. As per Act No.48 of2001, Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, “every person presenting any document w.e.f. 24.09.2001, at the proper Registration Office, under Section 32 shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document”. Therefore, it is evident that by the date of Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 13.04.1994, the said Act No.48 of2001 had not come into force. The Sub-Registrar, Guntakal/P.W.3 after verification of the official records asserted that Ex.A-1 is properly registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Guntakal.

22. The defendant No.2 title is based on Ex.B-1 sale deed said to have been obtained from the defendant No.1 on 13.12.2010. By the date of execution of sale under Ex.B-1 by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 is not having any title and the defendant No.1 lost his title because he had already alienated the same property to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 13.04.1994. Ex.A-1 is the prior registered sale deed. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is not having any title by the date of Ex.B-1. All the rights, title and interest of the vendor/defendant No.1 would be curtailed from the date of execution of the 1st sale deed under Ex.A-1 on 13.04.1994.

23. The „doctrine of bona fide purchaser for a value‟ applies in situations where the seller appears to have some semblance of legitimate ownership rights. However, this principle does not protect a subsequent purchaser, if the vendor had already transferred his rights through a proper sale deed. In a case where the vendor deceitfully executes the 2nd sale deed, sixteen (16) years after the initial transfer, without disclosing the earlier transaction and without any ongoing litigation regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor‟s rights were already severed by the 1st sale, any later sale deed made without transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered as bona fide, because the vendor no longer had the legal right to sell the property. Thus, the protection afforded by the bona fide purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor‟s deceitful conduct and the pre-existing transfer of rights.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that the plaintiff is having valid title under Ex.A-1 dated 13.04.1994, in the plaint schedule property. By the date of Ex.B-1 on 13.12.2010, the vendor/defendant No.1 was not having any right, title and interest in the suit schedule vacant site, since the rights and title of the vendor/defendant No.1 are validly transferred to the plaintiff under Ex.A- 1 registered sale deed, dated 13.04.1994, which is a prior sale deed and the right, title and interest of the defendant No.1 in the plaint schedule property would be curtailed from the date of execution of the 1st sale deed on 13.04.1994. Therefore, the plaintiff is having valid right and title over the plaint schedule property and the defendant No.2 is not having any valid title in the suit schedule property and the valid title of the plaintiff has to be protected by way of granting relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property.

25. In the case at hand, the trial Court without appreciation of the entire evidence on record in a proper manner came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. On appreciation of the entire evidence in a proper manner, the First Appellate Court came to a right conclusion that the plaintiff is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. 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 appellant 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.

26. 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.