APHC010186292025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL NO: 343/2025

Between:

Raja Venkatachalam and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND

Kandula Usha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GRANDHI PRIYANKA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 18.02.2026

Pronounced on 09.03.2026

Uploaded on 09.03.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL No. 343 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree

dated 03.01.2025, in A.S.No.27 of 2023, on the file of the III Additional District

Judge, Nellore, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, in

O.S.No.09 of 2019, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent No.1

herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.09 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Nellore.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.09 of 2019 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, with a prayer for declaration of her title

over the plaint schedule property for delivery of possession and also for

declaration that the documents executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 as null

and void and sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions

raised by the defendants in the suit schedule property and also for permanent

injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their men from interfering

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint

schedule property after handing over vacant possession to the plaintiff.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, decreed the suit with

costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above

said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, dismissed the first appeal by

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved

thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by

way of second appeal.

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 plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in

O.S.No.09 of 2019, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and

she purchased the same from the legal heirs of Epuru Sulochanamma for a

valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- on 11.01.1996, under a

registered sale deed and since then she has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff pleaded that originally the plaint schedule

property along with other properties No.1941 and other adjacent survey

numbers belonged to one Thikkavarapu family members and the father of the

defendant No.3 by name Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy. The plaintiff

further pleaded Thikkavarapu Rami Reddy and his two sons Thikkavarapu

Pattabhirami Reddy and Siva Kumar Reddy partitioned their ancestral

properties under a partition deed dated 20.08.1944, and the plaint schedule

property and other several properties devolved on the father of the

defendant No.3 by name T.Pattabhirami Reddy. The plaintiff further pleaded

that, thereafter the father of the defendant No.3 laid plots in different survey

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

numbers including S.No.1941 and obtained approved lay out from the

Panchayat Nellore Bit I Village. The father of the defendant No.3 gifted some

properties in favour of his wife, Smt. Snehalatha Reddy on 11.12.1974, and

registered the same. Thereafter, the said Snehalatha Reddy died intestate on

20.01.1977, and the plaint schedule property along with other several

properties under the gift deed reverted to her husband and children. The

plaintiff further pleaded that, subsequently, on 28.02.1978, the defendant

No.3, his sister Nandana executed a Registered General Power of Attorney in

favour of their father giving all rights in respect of the properties devolved on

them including the plaint schedule property on 15.05.1978.

The plaintiff further pleaded that as per the partition, the plaint schedule

property and some other properties delegated upon the daughter of

Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy by name Nandana Ishbilya and

subsequently, the GPA agent of N.Ishbiliya by name Thikkavarapu

Pattabhirami Reddy sold the plaint schedule plot Nos.9 and 10 to one Epuru

Sulochanamma for valuable consideration of Rs.7,200/- on 23.03.1981, and

she obtained a regular Registered Sale deed and since then she had been in

possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of the said sale deed until

her properties devolved on her family members. The family members of

E.Sulochanamma out of two plots sold plot No.10 to Muppala Nirmala vide

document dated 07.06.1994. The plaintiff pleaded that she purchased the

plaint schedule plot No.9, after the death of Sulochanamma, from the family

members of Epuru Sulochanamma under Regist ered Sale deed dated

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

11.01.1996, and on 09.01.2019, the plaintiff along with her family members

came to Nellore, and went to the plaint schedule property and found that some

illegal constructions were raised by defendant Nos.1 and 2, when they

questioned about the illegal constructions and activities, the defendant No.1

informed that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant

No.3 on 07.09.2018, under a Registered Sale deed.

The plaintiff further pleaded that on enquiries made by her, she found

that the defendant No.3 without having any right or title over the plaint

schedule property clandestinely in collusion with the defendant No.1 created

the documents. The plaintiff pleaded that on 11.01.2019, she got issued a

caution notice through the counsel to the public informing about the purchase

of the plaint schedule property by her from her vendor and about the

documents created by defendant Nos.1 and 3, which are not binding on her.

The said publication was made in Eenadu Daily Newspaper on 11.01.2019,

and subsequent to the filing of the suit, the defendant No.1 entered into a

registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated

09.04.2019, with the defendant-Firm represented by the defendant Nos.1, 5

and 6 as its partners with certain terms and conditions to construct residential

apartments under the name and style of Sri Vyshnavi Homes in the plaint

schedule site and the said development agreement and sale deeds were

executed pending the suit and hence, they are not valid and binding on the

plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement before the trial Court.

The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

The defendant No.3, who has become the absolute owner of the plaint

schedule property sold the plaint schedule property in favour of the

defendant No.1 for valuable consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- under Registered

Sale deed dated 07.09.2018, and the defendant No.1 paid the said

consideration amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- by way of demand draft dated

05.09.2018, drawn on the Union Bank of India. The defendant Nos.1 and 2

further pleaded that the defendant No.1 has become the absolute owner of the

plaint schedule property and except him no one has got any right or title over

the same. They further pleaded that the defendant No.1 being the absolute

owner of the plaint schedule property gifted an extent of 24 sq.ft. to the

defendant No.2 under Registered Gift deed dated 12.11.2018 and she has

been in possession and enjoyment of the same since the date of the said gift

deed. They further pleaded that the plaintiff is not the owner of the plaint

schedule property and she has no right to file the suit, as such, they prayed to

dismiss the suit with costs.

8. Defendant No.3 adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1

and 2. The defendant No.4 filed a written statement before the trial Court,

which was adopted by the defendant Nos.5 to 9. The present second appeal

is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant Nos.3 to 9 has not

preferred the second appeal along with the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Nellore, framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration of her title over

suit schedule property as prayed for?

2) Whether the Will deed, dated 30.02.1991 is genuine and the 3

rd

defendant got right, title over the suit schedule property?

3) Whether the executants of the Will, dated 30.05.1991 got right, title over

the suit schedule property to bequeath the same in favour of the 3

rd

defendant?

4) Whether the 1

st

defendant continue in possession as rightful owner?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the sale

deed dated 07.09.2019 vide doc.No.4660 of 2018 executed by the

defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1 and subsequent

settlement deed dated 12.11.2018 bearing doc.No.11904 of 2018

executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 for an

extent of 24 sq.ft as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff?

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of mandatory

injunction as prayed for?

8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

and

9) To what relief?

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

10. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-34 and Exs.C-1 to C-6 were

marked. On behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2, D.W.1 was examined and

Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked and on behalf of the defendant Nos.3 to 9,

D.W.2 was examined and no document was marked.

11. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, after conclusion of

trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and

documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved

thereby, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the appeal suit in

A.S.No.27 of 2023, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore,

wherein the following points came up for consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiff could establish her right, title and interest over the

plaint schedule property independently without depending on the

weakness in the case of the defendants or not?

2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the finding given by the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore? and

3) To what finding?

12. The learned III Additional District Judge, Nellore, i.e., the first appellate

Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against

the defendants and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendants. Felt

aggrieved of the same, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.09 of 2019 filed

the present second appeal before this Court.

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

13. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing

Ms.Grandhi Priyanka, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

14. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor

an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with

law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C., could be

admitted only when the appellants satisfies the Court that substantial question

of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining

whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or

whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so,

whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by

the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of

alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi

1

,

the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of High Court to investigate

grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely,

the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances

two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court

will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other

approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have

not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a

substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts,

1

(2007) 8 SCC 155

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be

raising a substantial question of law.

15. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for them to meet

the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial

question of law.

16. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by

both the Courts below, therefore, the grounds urged in the second appeal are

to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants has shown any substantial

question of law. The contention of appellants is that the judgment and decree

of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and

that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and

decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first

appellate Court.

17. The appellants are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.09 of 2019

before the trial Court and the undisputed facts of both the parties are the plaint

schedule property along with the other properties situated in Sy.No.1941 and

other adjacent survey numbers belong to one Thikkavarapu family members

and the father of defendant No.3 by name Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy.

The plaintiff further pleaded Thikkavarapu Rami Reddy and his two sons

Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy and Sivakumar Reddy partitioned their

ancestral properties under a registered partition deed dated 20.08.1944, and

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

the plaint schedule property and other several properties devolved on the

father of the defendant No.3 by name Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy and

thereafter, the father of the defendant No.3 laid plots in different survey

numbers including Sy.No.1941 and obtained the approved layout from the

panchayat. It is also undisputed by both the parties that Pattabhirami Reddy

gifted some of the properties in favour of his wife Snehalatha Reddy, under

the original of Ex.A-1, registered gift settlement deed dated 11.12.1974, and

the said gift settlement deed is a registered document, which is more than fifty

(50) years old document and the said document is not questioned by any of

the parties till so far. The wife of Pattabhirami Reddy by name Snehalatha

Redyy died intestate on 20.01.1977, by leaving her husband Pattabhirami

Reddy and her children/defendant No.3 and his sister by name Nandana

Ishbiliya.

18. The case of the plaintiff is that the children of Pattbhirami

Reddy/defendant No.3 and Nandana Ishbiliya executed a registered General

Power of Attorney in favour of their father on 28.02.1978, by giving all rights in

respect of the properties devolved on them, upon the death of their mother

Snehalatha Reddy. By virtue of registered General Power of Attorney, both

the children Pattabhirami Reddy viz. defendant No.3 and his sister has given

authority to their father Pattabhirami Reddy to deal with the property. The

recitals in Ex.A-2 clearly go to show that the children of Pattabhirami Reddy

authorizing their father to sell away the plots that devolved upon them in a

layout. Ex.A-3 certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 20.03.1981,

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

executed by Pattabhirami Reddy as General Power of Attorney holder of his

daughter by name Nandana Ishbiliya in favour of Sulochanamma. In Ex.A-3

sale deed, there are specific recitals about the family partition dated

15.05.1978, between Pattabhirami Reddy and his children and the plaint

schedule plot No.9 and another plot No.10 fell to the share of Nandana

Ishbiliya. The case of the plaintiff is that the legal representatives of

Sulochanamma sold the plot No.10 to Muppala Nirmala vide registered

document dated 07.06.1994. Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of the registered sale

deed dated 11.01.1996, it goes to show that the legal representatives of

Sulochanamma executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in

respect of Plot No.9 i.e. the plaint schedule property . To prove the case of the

plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and also one of the

vendors of the said sale deed as P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4

are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff got title and enjoyment

over the plaint schedule property. In order to prove their title in the schedule

property, the plaintiff relied on the registration extract of the sale deed and

also examined one of the vendors of the plaintiff as P.W.4. The plaintiff proved

her title by examining two witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.4.

19. The case of appellants is that the appellant No.1 is the husband of the

appellant No.2, the defendant No.3 is the vendor of appellant No.1/defendant

No.1. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 relied on the Ex.B-1 certified copy of the

registered Will dated 30.05.1991, said to have been executed by Pattabhirami

Reddy in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the property situated at

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

Bangalore and other movable properties, whereas, the plaint schedule

property herein is an immovable property situated at Nellore. D.W.1 is the

defendant No.1. As per his evidence, Pattabhirami Reddy has a wife by name

Snehalatha Reddy and two children i.e. the defendant No.3 and Nandana

Ishbiliya and the said Snehalatha Reddy died intestate. He further stated that

he purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A-6 on 07.09.2018, from

the defendant No.3. As per his evidence, the title to the plaint schedule

property under Ex.A-6 registered sale deed said to have been executed by the

defendant No.3 dated 07.09.2018 and the suit is filed on 21.01.2019, which is

just four (04) months prior of filing the suit. In Ex.A-6 also it was recited that

the Thikkavarapu Pattabhirami Reddy was the original owner of plaint

schedule plot No.9 and the said Pattabhirami Reddy executed a Will under

Ex.B-1 in respect of his property and Pattabhirami Reddy died on 06.05.2006.

20. As noticed supra, Ex.B-1 Will is no way connected to the property

situated at Nellore at where the plaint schedule property is situated. Ex.B-1

Will is confined in respect of the property situated at Bangalore and other

movable properties, the same is admitted by the propounder of Ex.B-1 Will, in

his evidence itself, D.W.2 is the propounder of the Will and also the vendor of

the defendant No.1. D.W.2 admits that there is no specific recital about the

plaint schedule property in the Will and the Will relates to the property situated

at Bangalore and movable properties. The vendor of defendant No.1 i.e.

D.W.2 admits in his evidence itself that there is no specific mention in the Will

that the immovable properties belong to the testator at Nellore were

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

bequeathed to him. He further admitted that he, his sister and his father are

settled in cinema industry at Bangalore.

21. The vendor of the defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.2 before the trial

Court. His evidence reveals that he became the absolute owner of the plaint

schedule property by virtue of registered Wil deed dated 30.05.1991, said to

have been executed by his father, subsequent to the death of his father he

has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and on 07.09.2018, he

sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1 under a registered

sale deed for a valuable sale consideration. By the date of Ex.B-1 Will dated

30.05.2019, the father of the defendant No.3 as the General Power of

Attorney holder of his children executed a registered sale deed in respect of

the plaint schedule plot No.9 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, by the date of

alleged Will Ex.B-1, dated 30.05.1991, the father of the defendant No.3 i.e.

Pattabhirami Reddy is not having any rights in respect of the plaint schedule

plot No.9 in view of the registered sale deed executed by Pattabhirami Reddy

as the General Power of Attorney holder of his children on 20.03.1981, in

favour of Epuru Sulochanamma. Therefore, it is evident that the vendor of the

defendant No.1 i.e. the defendant No.3 is not having any title in the plaint

schedule plot and that, no title is passed from the defendant No.3 under Ex.A-

6 to the defendant No.1.

22. The law is well settled that “the execution of a registered document by

itself will not create any new title and the execution or registration of the said

document covering any immovable property is governed by the principle

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

“Nemo dat quod non habet”, which means “no person can transfer/pass a

better title than what he possess in the property so transferred.” Given

the fact that the transfer of an immovable property is governed by the same

principle, the registering authority when receives a document and registered it,

does not decide the title of the persons executing the document. Therefore,

mere registration of the document will not confer any title and in the case of

any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to and

decided under the various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable

property. In the case at hand, the defendant No.3 is not having any title in the

plaint schedule property by the date of execution of the alleged sale deed in

favour of the defendant No.1 and that he cannot transfer a better title than

what he possess in the property so transferred. As noticed supra,

undoubtedly, the defendant No.1 will not get any title in the plaint schedule

property from his vendors/defendant No.3, since the defendant No.3 is not

having any title in the plaint schedule property as on the date of execution of

the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1.

23. There is a material evidence on record to show that by the date of

execution of Ex.A-6 sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1, his

vendor/defendant No.3 is not having any title in the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under a valid registered

sale deed from the legal representatives of Epuru Sulochanamma, a way back

in the year 1996 i.e. about twenty five (25) years prior to the institution of the

suit. It is evident that Sulochanamma purchased the same under the

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

registered sale deed dated 20.03.1981 from Pattabhirami Reddy, who is the

General Power of Attorney holder of his daughter by name Ishbiliya. It is also

relevant to mention here that the said Pattabhirami Reddy had got two

children i.e. the defendant No.3 and Ishbiliya, who executed Ex.A-2 registered

General Power of Attorney in favour of her father Pattabhirami Reddy, a way

back in the year 1978 i.e. on 28.02.1978, and the same is not yet cancelled till

so far. Both the defendant No.3 and his sister gave the registered General

Power of Attorney by giving all rights to their father for giving the property to

lease, mortgage or to sell the same and receive the sale consideration from

the vendees, the same is undisputed by the defendant No.3 and the

registered General Power of Attorney, dated 28.02.1978, is not challenged by

the defendant No.3 and his sister. Therefore, it is evident that the vendors of

the plaintiff are having absolute title in the plaint schedule property and the

same has been transferred to the plaintiff under a valid registered sale deed.

Therefore, the plaintiff has proved her title by way of Ex.A-4 registered sale

deed by examining one of the attestors of the said sale deed as P.W.2 and

one of the vendors of the plaintiff is also examined as P.W.4 before the trial

Court. For the aforesaid reasons, under Ex.A-4 registered document, the

plaintiff got absolute title in the plaint schedule property.

24. In a case of Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary and another,

Minors, rep. by Mother, Smt. A.V.Kalyani Vs. Potal Krishna Prasad and

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

another

2

, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as

follows:

“The Registration Act, 1908 is an Act, which strikes at documents and

not at transactions. The principal object of registering a document is to give

notice to the world that such a document has been executed, to prevent fraud

and forgery and to secure a reliable and complete account of all transactions

effecting the title to the property. Its further object is to provide a method of

public registration of documents so as to give information to people regarding

legal rights and obligations arising or affecting a particular property, and to

perpetuate documents, which may afterwards be of legal importance, and

also to prevent fraud. Registration sought to provide inviolability and

importance to certain classes of documents. Under Section 17 of the

Registration Act, 1908, certain documents, the value of transaction of which is

one hundred rupees and upwards, are required to be registered compulsorily,

and the effect of non-registration of such documents, is stated in Section 49

thereof. Thus from the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, by registration

of a document, it was intended to create legal rights and obligations which

may be of legal importance in future and to prevent fraud and forgery.”

It is well settled that “mere registration of the document by the

registering authority does not confer title unless the transferor is the lawful

owner of that property herein”. The transferor/defendant No.3 is not competent

to transfer any property to the defendant No.1 under Ex.A-6, since the

defendant No.3 was not having any title by the date of execution of sale deed

in favour of the defendant No.1. Therefore, Ex.A-6 cannot confer better title to

the defendant No.1 under Ex.A-1.

25. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the property has

fallen to the share of the defendant No.3, who acquired the same under a

2

2009 (3) ALT 18

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

registered partition dated 20.08.1944, but, both the Courts below failed to see

that the property is an ancestral property by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu

Succession Act, the father, the defendant No.3 and his sister would be the

co-owners. It was not pleaded by the appellants in the written statement that

the schedule property is an ancestral property and that Pattabhirami Reddy,

the defendant No.3 and his sister are the co-owners of the scheduler property

by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. There is no pleading in the

written statement or it was not suggested to the plaintiff’s witnesses in cross-

examination before the trial Court that the defendant No.3 and his sister are

having rights along with their father by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu

Succession Act, since they are the co-owners to the said property. For the first

time in the second appeal proceedings, it was contended by the learned

counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments in the second

appeal, the same is also not pleaded by the appellants before the First

Appellate Court. The law is well settled that “the Second Appellate Court

cannot go into the question which had not raised by the appellants in their

pleadings or in the evidence”. It is relevant to say that both the children of

Pattabhirami Reddy i.e. the defendant No.3 and his sister, gave a registered

General Power of Attorney dated 28.02.1978, in favour of their father

Pattabhirami Reddy to sell the plaint schedule property to deal with the

property, to mortgage or to sell the property to receive sale consideration from

the vendees.

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

26. As noticed supra, the plaintiff has got a valid title in respect of the plaint

schedule property and the defendant No.3 is not having any valid title and

interest in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, he cannot pass any title,

which he does not have. Thus on the basis of execution of Ex.A-6 sale deed

by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1, he cannot acquire

better title than that of the defendant No.3. Thus, the findings as recorded by

the two Courts i.e. the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are neither

perverse nor illegal and do not warrant any interference in the second appeal.

27. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the

concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the

issues/points against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff do not brook

interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit

in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below

were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record

and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore,

the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of substantial

questions of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court

as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly

speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions

of law.

28. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission,

confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and two (02)

months time is granted to the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of

VGKR, J.

SA_343_2025

the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff in O.S.No.09 of 2019, on the file of

the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Nellore. Considering the facts and

circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall

stand closed.

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 09.03.2026

SRT