RES JUDICATA – EARLIER SUIT DISMISSED “AS NOT PRESSED” – NO BAR TO SUBSEQUENT SUIT. Defendants pleaded that suit was barred by res judicata in view of O.S.No.461 of 1984; they relied on Exs.B3 and B4 (judgment and decree therein) and Ex.B1 patta. High Court noted that Ex.B3 shows the earlier suit was not pressed and dismissed on that basis; there was no adjudication on merits. Ex.B1 patta itself did not disclose survey number or extent, while Ex.B6 adangal produced by defendants related to S.No.151 and not the suit survey numbers. In absence of a prior decision on merits between parties over the same subject-matter, and given the defective nature of defendants’ documentary foundation, plea of res judicata was rightly rejected by Courts below. High Court declined to interfere with that conclusion in second appeal. REVENUE RECORDS – PATTA WITHOUT SURVEY NUMBER / EXTENT – LIMITED PROBATIVE VALUE. Ex.B1 patta relied on by defendants did not mention survey number or extent and thus could not establish title or possession over the precise plaint schedule land. Defendants’ adangal (Ex.B6) pertained to S.No.151, not to S.No.139/2, 139/4, 139/6 which constituted the suit land. In contrast, plaintiffs’ revenue records (Exs.A1–A4) specifically related to the suit survey numbers and were supported by pattadar passbooks and title deeds (Exs.A4–A9). Courts below, and the High Court, treated Ex.B1 and Ex.B6 as inadequate to displace plaintiffs’ documentary case.

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – SECTION 100 – SECOND APPEAL – SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE – CONCURRENT FINDINGS ON POSSESSION – NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.
   Plaintiffs, successors of original owner, filed suit for bare perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.0.60 cents wet land in S.No.139/2, 139/4 and 139/6 of Laveru village. Trial Court, on appreciation of revenue records (Adangals, Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds – Exs.A1 to A9) standing in plaintiffs’ and their father’s name, and admission by D.W.1 as to their existence, found plaintiffs in possession and decreed injunction. First appellate Court reappreciated oral and documentary evidence and confirmed the decree. In second appeal, defendants sought to reopen findings on (i) possession and (ii) res judicata based on O.S.No.461 of 1984. High Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view over concurrent findings of fact unless shown to be perverse, contrary to mandatory law, or based on inadmissible or ignored vital evidence. No such infirmity being demonstrated, second appeal dismissed at admission; no costs.

2. SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION – BURDEN TO PROVE POSSESSION – EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF REVENUE RECORDS – DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO CHALLENGE ENTRIES.
   In a suit for bare injunction, plaintiffs must establish actual possession as on the date of suit and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defendants’ case. Plaintiffs produced Exs.A1–A9 (Adangals, pattadar pass books and title deeds) showing Ac.0.60 cents in S.No.139/2, 139/4, 139/6 standing in their or their father’s name; defendants did not initiate any proceedings to have those entries cancelled. D.W.1 admitted existence of Exs.A1–A9 but merely alleged they were created for the suit. Trial and first appellate Courts concurrently held that plaintiffs had satisfactorily proved possession and that vague, unsupported allegations of fabrication cannot dislodge long-standing revenue entries not challenged in proper proceedings.

3. RES JUDICATA – EARLIER SUIT DISMISSED “AS NOT PRESSED” – NO BAR TO SUBSEQUENT SUIT.
   Defendants pleaded that suit was barred by res judicata in view of O.S.No.461 of 1984; they relied on Exs.B3 and B4 (judgment and decree therein) and Ex.B1 patta. High Court noted that Ex.B3 shows the earlier suit was not pressed and dismissed on that basis; there was no adjudication on merits. Ex.B1 patta itself did not disclose survey number or extent, while Ex.B6 adangal produced by defendants related to S.No.151 and not the suit survey numbers. In absence of a prior decision on merits between parties over the same subject-matter, and given the defective nature of defendants’ documentary foundation, plea of res judicata was rightly rejected by Courts below. High Court declined to interfere with that conclusion in second appeal.

4. REVENUE RECORDS – PATTA WITHOUT SURVEY NUMBER / EXTENT – LIMITED PROBATIVE VALUE.
   Ex.B1 patta relied on by defendants did not mention survey number or extent and thus could not establish title or possession over the precise plaint schedule land. Defendants’ adangal (Ex.B6) pertained to S.No.151, not to S.No.139/2, 139/4, 139/6 which constituted the suit land. In contrast, plaintiffs’ revenue records (Exs.A1–A4) specifically related to the suit survey numbers and were supported by pattadar passbooks and title deeds (Exs.A4–A9). Courts below, and the High Court, treated Ex.B1 and Ex.B6 as inadequate to displace plaintiffs’ documentary case.

5. CONCURRENT FINDINGS – NO PERVERSITY – SECTION 100 CPC BAR.
   Both Courts below found: (i) plaintiffs’ grandfather held Ac.0.60 cents ancestral wet land; (ii) plaintiffs’ father and thereafter plaintiffs continued in joint possession and cultivation; (iii) revenue records consistently reflected their possession; and (iv) defendants’ plea of res judicata and competing title failed for want of proper proof. High Court, applying the principles in Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann and Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, held that these are pure findings of fact based on evidence, not shown to be perverse, and that no substantial question of law arose. Second appeal dismissed at admission stage, without costs.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The litigation is a classic “bare injunction versus title-based defence” scenario, overlaid with an attempt to use an old suit as res judicata.

Plaintiffs’ narrative is straightforward. Their father, Kuppili China Appalanarasayya, held Ac.0.60 cents of wet land in Laveru village, in three sub-divisions of S.No.139 (139/2, 139/4 and 139/6), treated as ancestral property. After his death, the plaintiffs, being his sons, continued in joint possession, cultivating paddy and pulses. Revenue records – Adangals, pattadar passbooks and title deeds (Exs.A1–A9) – reflected either their father’s or their own names in respect of this very extent and these survey numbers. They alleged that the defendants, unrelated villagers, attempted to trespass, prompting the suit for perpetual injunction.

The defence proceeded on multiple fronts. Procedurally, they raised misjoinder and non-joinder, and lack of cause of action. Substantively, they introduced two new threads: first, that one Laveti Yellayya had already sued in O.S.No.64 of 2013 over part of the land; second, that plaintiffs’ father had earlier filed O.S.No.461 of 1984 concerning a private irrigation tank “Satyavani Banda” and adjoining lands, which, they argued, covered the same subject matter, thereby attracting res judicata. They also invoked Ex.B1 patta and Ex.B6 adangal and asserted that the prior decree and judgment in O.S.No.461 of 1984 (Exs.B3, B4) “bind” the plaintiffs.

The trial Court correctly framed the real issues: whether plaintiffs were in possession; whether the suit was barred by res judicata; and whether a perpetual injunction could be granted. On evidence, plaintiffs produced the critical revenue records: adangals specifying the suit survey numbers and extent (Ac.0.60 cents in S.No.139/2, 139/4, 139/6) and supporting pattadar pass books and title deeds. Defendants, significantly, did not take any steps at any time to have those entries cancelled or altered before the revenue authorities; they simply alleged from the witness box that plaintiffs “created” the documents for purposes of litigation.

D.W.1, however, under cross-examination, admitted the very existence of Exs.A1–A9, trying only to attribute mala fides. This admission is important: once defendants recognize that the records exist and are in the names of plaintiffs / their predecessor, but offer no concrete proceedings or orders showing cancellation, their position is one of bare allegation rather than proof. Both Courts treated this correctly: in a suit for injunction, revenue records, particularly adangals and pattadar passbooks, though not conclusive of title, are strong evidence of possession. When they are long-standing and unchallenged, a mere suggestion of fabrication, unsupported by any prior complaint or administrative challenge, cannot be decisive.

On the res judicata plea, defendants relied on Exs.B3 and B4 (judgment and decree in O.S.No.461 of 1984). The High Court notes that in that earlier suit the plaintiffs (including plaintiffs’ father) did not press the suit; it was dismissed as “not pressed”. For res judicata to operate, there must be a prior decision on a matter directly and substantially in issue, decided on merits between the same parties or their privies, in a competent Court. A dismissal as “not pressed” is not an adjudication on merits; it leaves the underlying issues undecided. That, by itself, is enough to knock out res judicata. Further, on facts, the defendants could not satisfactorily identify the precise subject-matter or demonstrate that it was identical to the present plaint schedule land; Ex.B1 patta did not show survey number or extent; Ex.B6 adangal pertained to S.No.151, a different survey entirely. Thus, the foundational requirement of subject-matter identity was not met.

The Court’s brief but pointed observation is telling: defendants produced no coherent chain of documentary evidence linking Ex.B1, Ex.B6 and O.S.No.461 of 1984 to the Ac.0.60 cents in S.No.139/2, 139/4 and 139/6 that plaintiffs claim. In contrast, plaintiffs’ chain – ancestor, father, then sons, supported by revenue entries precisely in those survey numbers – was internally consistent and unrebutted.

As to the governing legal framework, the Court again leans on the well-established Section 100 CPC jurisprudence. It recites and applies the principles from Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann and Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal: second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, based on inadmissible evidence, or rendered in ignorance of material evidence or settled legal principles. It re-emphasises that “perversity” itself, if present, would constitute a substantial question of law – but that requires a categorical demonstration.

Here, the High Court finds none. The trial Court had evaluated both sides’ documents, recognized that Ex.B1 and Ex.B6 did not even map clearly onto the suit land, and that O.S.No.461 of 1984 had ended without a merits adjudication. The appellate Court, as final fact-finding Court, re-examined the record, accepted the plaintiffs’ revenue entries as proof of possession and agreed that res judicata did not apply. Nothing in the appellants’ arguments in second appeal revealed any misapplication of Section 11 CPC, any misconstruction of Ex.B3/B4, or any reliance on inadmissible material.

Accordingly, the High Court holds that no substantial question of law arises on either the issue of possession or res judicata. That is why the appeal is dismissed “at the admission stage”, without even formulating a question under Section 100 – a signal that this is a pure factual dispute concluded by concurrent findings.

Practically, for your future work, this judgment is useful on three axes:

• In pure injunction suits, strong, consistent revenue records plus admissions on the other side will sustain concurrent findings on possession against a Section 100 challenge.

• A prior suit dismissed “as not pressed” cannot sustain a plea of res judicata absent some other adjudicative determination.

• Patta/adangal relied upon by defendants must be precise as to survey and extent; vague pattas without survey numbers and adangals relating to different survey numbers will be treated as insufficient to dislodge the plaintiffs’ documentary case.