IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 324 OF 2025 Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dt.21.02.2025 passed in A.S No.92 of 2018 on the file of Court of the Learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Srikakulam, dismissing the appeal, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree dt.21.06.2018 passed in O.S. No.305 of 2012 on the file of Court of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, Between: 1. Kandivalasa Pentayya, S/o. Late Tata, aged 46 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-35, Laveru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. Kandivalasa Appa Rao, S/o Late Ramulu, aged 51 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D.No.4-36, Laveru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. Kandivalasa Srinu, S/o Late Appanna, aged 35 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. D.No.4-37, Laveru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Appellants/Appellants/Defendants AND 1. Kuppili Thavudu, S/o Chinna Appalanarasayya, (Died) 2. Kuppili Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Late Chinna Appalanarasayya, aged 56 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D.No.305, Laveru Village and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 3. Kuppili Bhasakara Rao, S/o Late Chinna Appalanarasayya aged years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o D.No.306, Laveru Village and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 53 ...Respondents/ Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Order XLI Rule 5 R/W Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of Judgment Decree dt.21.02.2025 passed in A. No.92 of 2018 on the file of Court of the and Learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Srikakulam as has been confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dt.21.06.2018 passed in O.S. No.305 of 2012 on the file of Court of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, pending disposal of the main Second Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Srinivas Ambati Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: APHC010211422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 324/2025 Between: Kandivalasa Pentayya and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Kuppili Thavudu and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT The Defendants in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2025 in A.S.No.92 of 2018 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 in O.S.No.305 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Page 2 of 9 For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the suit. 2. 3. Plaintiffs filed the suit for the grant of a perpetual injunction. In the plaint, it was contended, interalia, that the plaintiffs are the sons of Kuppili China Appalanarasayya. Sri China Appalanarasayya had Ac.0.60 cents of wet iknd in Laveru viiiage i.e. the piaint schedule property, and it The plaintiffs succeeded to the property after The plaintiffs have been living jointly and is his ancestral property, the death of their father, cultivating the property by raising paddy, green gram, black gram and The revenue records are in the name of the plaintiffs to the schedule property and other wet crops The defendants, strangers father, belonging to the same village, are trying to trespass on the schedule property. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed a written statement, and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. The defendants pleaded that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no of action to file the suit. One Laveti Yellayya filed suit O.S.No.64 file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, against the 4. cause of 2013 on the defendant, and the same is pending, in respect of Ac.0.50 cents of defendant dug a bond called as 1 land. The grandfather of the 1 Satyavani Banda”, a private tank to store water for irrigation for the land extent of Ac.5.72 cents in S.No.139 of Laveru village. The measuring an defendants’ ended on 27.04.1989. The subject and the present suit is the same. The judgment in O.S.No.461 of 1984 plaintiffs and has eventually prayed to dismiss the suit. father filed suit O.S.No.461 of 1984, and the same matter of the suit O.S.No.461 of 1984 was binds the 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: i) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as contended by them? 2) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed for? 4) To what relief? The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined • s. and 3. EXS.A1 to A9 were marked. The r'defendant examined imself as D.W. 1 and got examined D.Ws. 2 and 3. Exs.Bt to B6 marked. 6. were 7. The trial Court on examining both oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction on 21.01.2018. 8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal A.S.No.92 of 2018. The lower appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary appeal by judgment and decree Assailing the said judgments evidence, dismissed the dated and decrees, the above 21.02.2025. second appeal is filed. 9- Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants below failed to consider the O.S.No.461 of 1984. and misinterpreted the evidence would submit that the Courts aspect of res Judicata, given the judgment i He would submit that the Courts in below misread on record. Page 4 of 9 , the following substantial the pleadings and contentions of law would arise for consideration; 11. Based on questions the plaintiffs proved their possession over the suit on the date of filing of the suit, it 1) Whether schedule property suit for perpetual injunction? as being a 2) Whether the judgment and decree in operate as res judicata? Whether the Courts below O.S.No.461 of 1984 misread and misinterpreted the 3) documents? extent of Ac.0.10 cents m plaint schedule property is an in S.No.139/4, and Ac.0.30 cents Laveru village 12. The S.No.139/2; Ac.0.20 cents m S.No.139/6, totalling an extent _of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Srikakulam District. The revenue authorities assigned Khata number to the schedule property. The plaintiffs, filed revenue records i.e., adangals, patta filed EXS.B1 to B6. Exs.B3 in O.S.No.461 of and Mandal of 2130 as Patta or in support of their case and title deeds. The defendants ies of the decree and judgment in pass books and B4 are certified copies 1984. EX.B1 is the Patta on which reliance was placed by the defendants regarding the schedule property. „ is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule is their ancestral property. Exs.AI to A4 are numbers. Exs.A4 to A9 are 13. property is the fasli . Pattadar pass 1422 dated 15.11.2012 of 3 survey books and title deeds. 1 oral and documentary plaintiffs proved title and . In fact, D.W.1 in his cross- The Courts below, after considering evidence, recorded possession over 14. the finding that the the suit schedule property examination admitted the existence of Exs.M to A9, however, he contended that the plaintiffs created them for the suit. The defendants did not take any steps to cancel the revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest. Ex.B1 patta does not disclose the survey number and extent. Exs.BS and B4 judgment and decree in O.S.No.461 of 1984, the plaintiffs in the suit did not press the suit, and hence the said suit was dismissed. The adangal filed by the defendants was marked as Ex.B6, and it pertains to S.No.151. Though the suit is filed for relief of the perpetual injunction, since the defendants set up title to the property and marked Exs.BI to B6, this Court made the above observations based on the material available on record. 15. The plaintiffs, as discussed supra, established their possession over the suit schedule property and both the Courts below, after considering oral and documentary evidence, recorded findings concurrently. 16. The scope of Section 100 of CPC vis-a-vis the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below is well settled. 17. Dealing with the scope of Section 100 of CPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kulwant Kaur and Ors vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors.’' held as follows: 18. “Section 100 of CPC introduced a definite restriction on to the exercise of jurisdiction in a second appeal so far as the High Court is concerned. Needless to say that the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 introduced such an embargo for such ^2a01)4SCC 262 definite objectives and since we are not required to further probe that score, we are not detailing out, but the fact remains that while it is true that in a second appeal a finding of fact even if will generally not be disturbed but where it is found that the findings stands vitiated on wrong test and on the basis of assumptions and conjectures and resultantly there is an element of perversity involved therein, the High Court in our view will be within its jurisdiction to dealt with the issue. This is, however, only in the event such a fact is brought to light by the High Court explicitly and the judgment should also be categorical as to the issue of perversity vis-a-vis the Concept of justice. Needless to however, that perversity itself is a substantial question worth adjudication what is required is a categorical finding on the part of the High Court as to perversity.” on erroneous say 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hero Vinoth Vs. Seshammal^ held thus; “19. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court will, however, interfere are ^ AIR 2009 SC 1481 isr-r-i ■ x where 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 by ignoring material evidence. It was furthermore held: 23. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari MANU/SC/0091/2001). 24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC, relevant for this case, may be summarized thus:- (i)... 'X' (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A the decision of the to which affects the rights of question of law having a material bearing on case (that is, a question, answer parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal . A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary clear, either on account of issue situation, where the legal position is express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has c^ecided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. on the scope of A conspectus of judgments referred to supra interference by the High Court in second appeal, this Court, while under Section 100 of CPC, must confine itself to 20. exercising jurisdiction the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below, where the Courts below have exercised the discretion judicially. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the Courts are If the and contrary to the evidence on record, failure to consider manifestly perverse findings are based on inadmissible evidence or relevant evidence High Court, under Section 100 of CPC can mterf^ ;/ 21. However, in the above second appeal, the findings of fact recorded by Courts below, being the Court of first instance and final fact finding Court, are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and it does not call for any interference of this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. This Court finds no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, involved in the present second appeal. Hence, the second appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed, however, without costs. 22. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is Dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY R|GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Srikakulam District. 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam 3. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies , Srikakulam District. Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED: 16/06/2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.324 of 2025 5/ 2 “i SEP 2025 ^V>C^irrent ^5^£aiS!SSS/ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS