APHC010283522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 438/2025 Between: 1. GALALA SARADA, , W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D. NO. 6-391/1/B, KAILASANAGAR, ARILOVA BALAJI NAGAR, CHINA GADIII MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. GALALA RAJASEKHAR,, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D. NO. 6- 391/1/B, KAILASANAGAR, ARILOVA BALAJI NAGAR, CHINA GADIII MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. GALALA RAMESH,, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D. NO. 6-391/1/B, KAILASANAGAR, ARILOVA BALAJI NAGAR, CHINA GADIII MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. CHITRI RAJA RAO, S/o Late Papayya, Aged about 46 years, Occ Cultivation and Business, R/o Chinnashalantri Village, Shalantri Post, Sarubujji Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C. against orders Appellants beg to present this Second appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 25-03- 2025 in A.S. No. 27 of 2023 on the file of Honble Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam confirming the Decree and Judgment SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 dated 27-03-2023 in O.S. No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Honble Court of Junior Civil Judge, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay the operation of decree dated 25-03-2025 in A.S. No. 27 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam confirming the decree dated 27-03-2023 in O.S. No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble Court of Junior Civil Judge, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam and pass such Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B M PATRO The Court made the following: :JUDGMENT: The defendants in the suit filed the above second appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2025 in A.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2023 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa. 2. For brevity, the parties to the judgment are referred to as plaintiff and defendants. 3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.106 of 2017 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.2,93,000/-, principal being Rs.2,50,000/-. In the plaint, it was contended that the deceased G. Satayanrayana, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3, borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff, on 06.06.2016, to meet family expenses and discharge sundry debts and promised to repay the principal amount with interest at 12% per month. The SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 deceased executed a promissory note on the same day. Sri Satyanarayana died on 08.09.2017, leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.10.2017 to the defendants. Defendants 1 and 3 received the same. Notice against defendant No.2 was returned with an endorsement that he had left India. Defendants 1 and 3 got issued a reply notice dated 21.10.2017. Since the defendants failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.106 of 2017. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, and the same was adopted by Defendants 2 and 3. It was contended, inter alia, that the late Satyanarayana had no necessity to borrow the said amount from the plaintiff. The transaction is neither true nor correct. The deceased had not utilised the amount for family needs. The debt is Avyavaharika debt, and hence, the defendants have no necessity to repay the same. Late Satyanarayana never executed the suit promissory note, and the signature on the promissory note does not belong to late Satyanarayana. To grab the property at Chinna Shalantri Village, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined one of the attestors as PW2. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed necessary issues and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs, on 27.03.2023, against the estate of the deceased Satyanarayana lying with the defendants for an amount of Rs.2,93,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization of principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. 7. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC vide A.S.No.27 of 2023 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 Srikakulam. The appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, after framing points for consideration, dismissed the appeal with costs by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2025. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. 9. Learned counsel for defendants would submit that neither the Trial Court nor Appellate Court considered the admissions made by PWs 1 and 2 regarding execution of promissory note at Amudalavalasa, in proper perspective. He would also submit that the Courts below failed to apply the doctrine of pious obligation. 10. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the Second Appeal is: 1. Whether the Courts below failed to consider the alleged admissions of PW1 vis-à-vis Ex.A1, promissory note? If so, the judgments of the courts below are vitiated. 11. As seen from the narration supra, the plaintiff pleaded about the execution of suit promissory note, dated 06.06.2016 (Ex.P1) by the deceased late Satyanaryana; death of Sri Satyanrayana, on 08.09.2017; issuance of legal notice, dated 09.10.2017 (Ex.P2) and a reply notice dated 21.10.2017 (Ex.A4). 12. Defendant No.1 has taken the following defence in the written statement. 1. Late Satyanarayana has no necessity to borrow the amount. 2. The transaction is neither true nor correct. 3. The transaction is Avyavaharika debt, for which the defendants have no necessity to repay. 4. The signature on the promissory note does not belong to Satyanarayana. SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 5. To grab the properties in the village, the plaintiff created the promissory note. 13. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2, one of the attestors and proved the suit transaction. As seen from the defence, defendant No.1 at one stage admitted the debt and pleaded Avyavaharika debt. On the other side, denied signature of the deceased on the promissory note. Having pleaded forgery, the defendants did not take any steps to send the documents to the expert. Even concerning the plea of Avyavaharika debt, the defendants failed to lead any evidence. In the absence of evidence in that regard, the trial Court appreciated evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and decreed the suit. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 14. The other contention of learned counsel for the defendants is that the admissions made by PW1, in his cross-examination, were not properly considered by the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court. 15. Learned counsel would contend that the plaintiff, being PW1, in his cross-examination, stated that “during the lifetime of the deceased Satyanarayana, I never demanded the amount under Ex.A1 from the defendants. Either myself or Garala Satyanarayana have not informed about the alleged Ex.A1.” 16. An admission is unequivocal, and it should be replicated. Going by the averments in the plaint, the promissory note is dated 06.06.2016, and the executant died on 08.09.2017. The plaintiff in his deposition stated that he never demanded G. Satyanayrana during his lifetime. The solitary sentence in the cross-examination, in the facts of this case, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be termed as an admission. 17. The limitation to file suit for recovery of the amount is three years from the date of execution of the promissory note as per Article 34 of the Limitation SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 Act, 1963. As seen from the material, the executant died within one year and three months after execution of the promissory note. 18. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the defendants vis-à-vis the alleged admission made by PW1 falls to the ground and in fact, both the courts below considered all these aspects. 19. The Doctrine of Pious Obligation, a principle where the sons are responsible for repaying the father’s death, was nullified by Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, w.e.f. 05.09.2005. Neither is there a pleading about the Pious Obligation in the written statement, nor was any evidence adduced in that regard. In the absence of either pleading or evidence, the appellants cannot raise the same in the second appeal for the first time. 20. The scope of Section 100 of CPC vis-à-vis the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below is well settled. 21. 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.1 held as follows: “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 definite objectives and since we are not required to further probe on 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 erroneous 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 1 (2001) 4 SCC 262 SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 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-à-vis the Concept of justice. Needless to say 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.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hero Vinoth Vs. Seshammal2, 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 are 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 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 2 AIR 2009 SC 1481 SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 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 summerized thus:- (i) … (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of 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 issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided 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.” SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 23. A conspectus of judgments referred to supra on the scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, must confine itself to 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 manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. If the findings are based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider relevant evidence, the High Court, under Section 100 of CPC, can interfere. 24. However, in the present second appeal, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, 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. 25. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 14.08.2025 IKN SRS,J S.A.No.438 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL No.438 of 2025 14.08.2025 IKN