BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 1 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

APHC010768372002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

SECOND APPEAL No: 224/2002

Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O. KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATCHAYYA, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

2. BODDANA LAKSHMU, S/O. R AMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

3. ALLADA APPARAO, S/O. VANJAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. A RAVI SHANKAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K MANIK PRABHU

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 2 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

APHC010407482002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

SECOND APPEAL No: 254/2002

Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O. LATE KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION

R/O. KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATVHAYYA, S/o. late Peda Ramanna, Cultivation R/o.

Kondavalasa(V), Sarubujjili(M), Srikakulam dist.

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. A RAVI SHANKAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. K MANIK PRABHU

The Court made the following:

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 3 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

S.A.No.224 OF 2002

Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O . KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATCHAYYA, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

2. BODDANA LAKSHMU, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

3. ALLADA APPARAO, S/O. VANJAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 27.03.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_____________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 4 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ S.A.No.224 OF 2002

% 27.03.2025

# Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O. KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATCHAYYA, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

2. BODDANA LAKSHMU, S/O. RAMAYYA, R /O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

3. ALLADA APPARAO, S/O. VANJAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Ravishankar

^ Counsel for the

Respondents : Sri K.Manik Prabhu

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1968 A.P. 276

This Court made the following:

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 5 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

S.A.No.254 OF 2002

Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O. KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATCHAYYA, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...RESPONDENT:

DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 27.03.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

_____________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 6 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ S.A.No.254 OF 2002

% 27.03.2025

# Between:

1. CHEEPURU RAMULU,, S/O. KURMAYYA, CULTIVATION, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. ALLADA LATCHAYYA, S/O. RAMAYYA, R/O.

KONDAVALASA(V),SARUBUJJILI(M), SRIKAKULAM DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Ravishankar

^ Counsel for the

Respondent : Sri K.Manik Prabhu

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1968 A.P. 276

This Court made the following:

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 7 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

SECOND APPEALS No.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T:

S.A.No.224 OF 2002

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, was filed by the appellant/respondent/plaintiff assailing

the common judgment, dated 30.10.2001, of the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Srikakulam, passed in A.S.No.52 of 2001.

02. The appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.16/1994 on the file of learned

District Munsif Court, Amadalavalasa, against the

respondents/defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction,

contending that the suit schedule property i.e., ABCD pathway is a part

and parcel of the property covered by sale deed dated 26.04.1948

purchased by his father, and that the ABCD pathway is in existence

since long time. The defendants causing obstruction to use the passage

due to village rivalry. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

03. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property i.e.,

ABCD pathway is a part and parcel of the property covered by sale deed

dated 26.04.1948 purchased by his father, and that the ABCD pathway

is in existence since long time; The defendants causing obstruction to

use the passage due to village rivalry; Hence, the suit for permanent

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 8 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

injunction.

04. The case of the defendant is that the suit property i.e., ABCD

pathway is a common pathway of Allada people used to reach

Rajamargam (main road) from the defendants’ house; The defendants

alone are having exclusive right over the said pathway; The plaintiff has

neither title nor possession over the said pathway; Hence, the suit for

permanent injunction is not maintainable.

S.A.No.254 OF 2002

05. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, was filed by the appellant/respondent/defendant

assailing the common judgment, dated 30.10.2001, of the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, passed in A.S.No.65 of 2001.

06. The suit in O.S.60/1994 is filed by the 1

st

defendant in

O.S.16/1994 against the plaintiff in O.S.16/1994, contending that the

1

st

defendant is the owner of the said suit property i.e., ABCD pathway

and that she purchased the suit schedule property from one

Dharmavarapu Ramulu and his family members on 25.03.1997 and ever

since, the 1

st

defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property; and she also raised foundations in the said

property; therefore, the plaintiff in O.S.16/1994 has neither title nor

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 9 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

possession over the suit schedule property; Hence, the suit for

permanent injunction.

07. The plaintiff in O.S.16/1994 i.e., defendant in O.S.60/1994

contended that he is owner of the schedule property, which is situated

towards western side of 1

st

defendant foundations and that it was

purchased under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1998; in the suit

property, a house was constructed leaving some place towards east for

pathway to reach Rajamargam (main road) located on the northern side

since long time without any interruption; the 1

st

defendant has neither

title nor possession over the said property.

08. During the course of trial, before the learned District Munsif Court,

Amadalavalasa, both counsel filed a joint memo dated 21.07.1997 to

club O.S.16/1994 and O.S.60/1994 and to record evidence in

O.S.16/1994. Accordingly, the memo was recorded, as the suit schedule

property and parties in both the suits are one and the same.

09. Taking into consideration of the above pleadings, the trial Court

settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?

2. To what relief?

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 10 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

10. At trial, on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.16/1994, P.W-1 and P.W-2

were examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the

defendants, D.W-1 to D.W-3 were examined, and Ex. B-1 was marked.

11. The learned trial Court on consideration of the above evidence

placed by the respective parties, vide common judgment dated

30.09.1997, dismissed the suit in O.S.16/1994 and decreed the suit in

O.S.60/1994 granting permanent injunction in favour of the

1

st

defendant.

12. The plaintiff in O.S.16/1994, who is defendant in O.S.60/1994

preferred A.S.52/2001 (O.S.16/1994) and A.S.65/2001 (O.S.60/1994) on

the file of learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, challenging the

common judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.

13. The learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, disposed of both

appeals vide common judgment dated 30.10.2001, and dismissed both

the appeals i.e., A.S.52/2001 and A.S.65/2001 with costs. Hence, the

Second Appeals vide S.A.224/2002 (A.S.52/2001) and S.A.254/2002

(A.S.65/2001) came to be filed.

14. The parties are referred to as arraigned in O.S.16/1994 for

convenience and clarity.

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 11 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

15. The common substantial questions of law are raised in both the

appeals are as under:

1. Whether the Courts below are justified in ignoring Ex.A-1 sale

deed dated 26.04.1948, which is more than 30 years old in view

of section 90 of Evidence Act?

2. Whether the Courts below failed to consider the admission of

the 1

st

defendant that ABCD suit schedule lane was used as

passage to reach Rajamargam?

16. Heard, Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant/Plaintiff and Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned counsel appearing

for the Respondents/Defendants. Perused the material on record.

17. QUESTIONS No.1 & 2:

On consideration of the evidence placed by the respective

parties, both Courts below made a concurrent finding on facts, holding

that the property covered under Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-1 sale deeds would

show existence of a Rajamargam (main road). The plaintiff’s property

covered under Ex. A-1 is located on western side of the 1

st

defendant’s

property covered by Ex. B-1.

18. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property

i.e., ABCD passage is part and parcel of the property covered by

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 12 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

Ex. A-1 and it runs from south to north and east to west. Ex. A-2 plaint

schedule plan and the length of the property from north to south as 50

cubits, and east to west as 6 cubits. The plaintiff admitted that the suit

schedule pathway has been arranged recently for his purpose. He

deposed that doorway was opened into eastern side and he has been

passing through ABCD lane to reach Rajamargam (main road). But,

contrary to his statement, in the cross-examination, he admitted that

no doorways or windows opened on the eastern side of his house.

Thereby, contradicting his own statement that he has been using

ABCD pathway as part of his property.

19. Both courts categorically found that the plaintiff failed to prove

that ABCD pathway is in existence since long time and it is part of the

property purchased under Ex. A-1 sale deed, except relying on Ex.A-1

document.

20. The 1

st

defendant did not dispute about the execution of Ex. A-1

sale deed in favour of the plaintiff’s father. The dispute is that the

ABCD pathway is not part of the property covered by Ex. A-1 sale

deed.

21. Both the Courts below, on consideration of evidence,

categorically held that the plaintiff failed to prove that ABCD passage

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 13 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

is part of the property purchased under Ex. A-1 sale deed.

22. The contention of the plaintiff is that Ex. A-1 is a 30 years old

document, and therefore, it shall be presumed that the contents of the

document are true and correct as per section 90 of the Evidence Act

and both the Courts below ignored the said legal proposition.

23. Section 90 of the Evidence Act deals with the presumption as to

documents 30 years old: It speaks that

“where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old,

is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular

case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature

and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the

handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's

handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested,

that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it

purports to be executed and attested.”

24. Therefore, when a document more than 30 years old, comes

from proper custody, it must be presumed to have been executed by

the person by whom it purports to be executed as laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Boddu Veerayya Vs. Aripirala

Venkata Laxmamma

1

. Therefore, the principle underlining section 90

of the Indian Evidence Act is that if a document 30 years old or more is

1

AIR 1968 A.P. 276

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 14 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

produced from proper custody and is, on its face, free from suspicion,

the Court may presume that it has been duly executed and attested.

All that section 90 says is where any document purporting to be 30

years old is produced, the Court may presume that it was executed by

the person by whom it purports to be executed. Therefore, the Court

may presume its execution and attestation.

25. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, primarily deals with

the presumption related to genuineness of a document’s signature and

execution, but, it does not directly address the contents of the

document itself. Therefore, it is related to authenticity of the signature

and execution only, not the accuracy or truthfulness of the contents of

the document. To prove the contents of a document, other provisions

of the Evidence Act, such as those related to admissibility and proof of

the documents must be complied with. Hence, even if a document is

presumed to be genuine U/s.90 of the Evidence Act, the contents of

the document still need to be proved separately.

26. The contents of the document shall be proved as required under

law by adducing proper evidence. No presumption can be drawn

U/s.90 of the Indian Evidence Act with reference to the contents of the

document.

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 15 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

27. In the case on hand, both the Courts below categorically found

that the plaintiff failed to prove that the ABCD pathway claimed by him

as part of the property covered by the property purchased under

Ex. A-1 sale deed.

28. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with

the judgment and decree of the Courts below in respect of

O.S.16/1994.

29. When coming to the contention of the 1

st

defendant in

O.S.16/1994, both the Courts below found that the evidence on record

placed by both sides, would establish that the 1

st

defendant has laid

foundations on the western side of her property, as the disputed

property i.e., ABCD pathway is in the possession of the 1

st

defendant,

and it was not used as pathway by the plaintiff to reach Rajamargam

(main road) as claimed by him. Therefore, decreed the suit filed by the

1

st

defendant i.e., O.S.60/1994 for permanent injunction.

30. Further, the plaintiff himself admitted that there are no doorways

opened towards eastern side of his house to enter into the ABCD

pathway, and he has been using northern side pathway to reach the

road. Therefore, it ruled out the alternative plea of the plaintiff that he

is having easementary right over ABCD property.

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 16 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

31. In the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.60/1994 by the Courts below.

32. In the light of above findings on substantial questions of law

raised by the appellants in both the appeals, both the appeals are

liable to be dismissed.

33. In the result, both the Second Appeals are dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlacutory applications pending in both the Second

Appeals, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI.

Note: L.R.Copy is to be marked

B/o. psk.

27.03.2025

psk

BVLNC,J S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Page 17 of 17 Dt: 27.03.2025

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

01

S.A.Nos.224 OF 2002 & 254 OF 2002

Note: Mark L.R. Copy

psk.

27

th

March, 2025

W

psk