APHC010293492023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NOS: 331/2023 & 462 OF 2023 Between: Muddineti Dhana Prakash and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Ammireddy Tejasri and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M V SURESH The Court made the following: Common Judgment: The Second Appeal No.331 of 2023 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.156 of 2018 and the Second Appeal No.462 of 2023 is filed against the decree and judgment passed in cross objections filed in A.S.No.156 of 2018. Both these second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) are filed by the plaintiffs against the common judgment, dated 20.04.2023 in A.S.No.156 of 2018 and cross objections in A.S.No.156 of 2018 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short) and that both these second appeals are clubbed together for being pronouncement of common judgment. 2. The appellants in both the second appeals herein are plaintiffs and the respondents in both the second appeals herein are defendants in O.S.No.188 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam (“trial Court” for short). 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.188 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, with a prayer for cancellation of registered sale deeds bearing Nos.33/2006 and 34/2006 on the file of Pedana Sub-Registrar, Krishna District and to intimate the same to the Sub-Registrar, Pedana and also to direct the 3rd defendant or defendants to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs within the time fixed by the Court and if the defendants failed to do so, to evict them from the plaint schedule properties in due process of law and to put the plaintiffs in possession of the plaint schedule properties and to direct the 3rd defendant or defendants to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- per year to the plaintiffs towards future profits from the agriculture year of 2006-07 and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.156 of 2018 and the defendants filed cross objections in A.S.No.156 of 2018 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam to set aside the finding of the trial Court in the judgment to the effect that “the defendants and plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that Ex.A.1-Will, dated 18.08.2000 executed by late Muddineti Ranga Rao is a fabricated document”. The learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, dismissed the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit approached this Court by way of the above second appeals. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.188 of 2006, is as follows: (a) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of late Muddineti Ranga Rao and his second wife by name Sarada. First wife of said Ranga Rao by name Padmavathi and his second wife are own sisters. Said Ranga Rao got three daughters through his first wife and two sons who are plaintiffs and a daughter through his second wife. Accordingly, the said Ranga Rao got four daughters and two sons in total. Third defendant is no other than the husband of one Baby Kumari, who is the daughter of said Ranga Rao and his second wife and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of 3rd defendant and said Baby Kumari. Accordingly, 3rd defendant is no other than the brother-in-law of the plaintiffs. (b) On 18.08.2000, Ranga Rao executed a Will in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing the suit properties and some other properties in favour of the plaintiffs and thus, after the death of Ranga Rao, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property. After the death of Ranga Rao, 3rd defendant and his wife with an evil motive, to enrich illegally, threatened the plaintiffs, wives of Ranga Rao and other family members with dire consequences for partition of the properties, as such, the plaintiffs and other family members suspected life danger in the hands of 3rd defendant and got issued legal notice, dated 13.06.2005 in the name of his wife to the tenants of the plaintiffs, calling upon them to pay the rentals to his wife, as if his wife is the owner of the lands, which were under their cultivation and the tenants got issued reply notice denying the right of the wife of 3rd defendant. (c) While the matter stood thus, 3rd defendant placed the matter before one M.V.V. Subba Rao @ Mekala Subba Rao to get properties from the plaintiffs and in the said meeting, 3rd defendant and said Subba Rao threatened the plaintiffs to see their end, if they did not heed to their directions. Ultimately, both of them dominated and directed the plaintiffs to execute registered sale deeds and as there was no alternative, the plaintiffs under the influence of coercion, undue influence and fraud, executed two registered sale deeds, dated 07.01.2006 under Document No.33/2006 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property in favour of 1st defendant and another registered sale deed in respect of Item No.2 of the suit property in favour of 2nd defendant under Document No.34/2006 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Pedana and in the said documents, M.V.V. Subba Rao signed as one of the attestors. Though it was mentioned in the above documents that consideration was paid, no consideration was passed under the said two sale deeds. (d) Subsequently, 3rd defendant and said Subba Rao obtained the signatures of the plaintiffs on four blank promissory notes, five blank white papers and three blank non-judicial stamps worth of Rs.10/- with a warning that they will use those blank documents, if the plaintiffs report the matter to the police or if they file any suit in the Court. (e) On 07.01.2006 said Subba Rao obtained an “Oppudala Patram” from the sisters of the plaintiffs in favour of the plaintiffs and their mothers, in which Subba Rao signed as an attestor. Basing on the said sale deeds, 3rd defendant took possession of the suit properties, which are fertile lands and fit for double crop, as such, one can get profit at Rs.40,000/- per year. Hence, the suit. 7. The brief facts in the written statement filed by the defendants before the trial Court are as follows: (a) Muddineti Ranga Rao died leaving behind him, his wife Padmavathi and three daughters viz., (1) Tammana Sridevi, W/o Siva Nageswara Rao, (2) Tammana Chandravathi, W/o Srinivasa Rao and (3) Ammireddi Baby Kumari, W/o Ramu. (b) Muddineti Ranga Rao took an amount of Rs.50,000/- from 3rd defendant promising to buy some landed properties near his lands in Ghantlampalem, Arisepalli and on 16.12.2003 Ranga Rao also obtained signatures of 3rd defendant, his wife on two stamp papers worth of Rs.100/- each and four white papers stating that they have to obey his words, but without purchasing any property he died and after his death, the plaintiffs have taken custody of the said papers. In spite of several requests made to return the above mentioned papers, the plaintiffs refused to return the same. As such, 3rd defendant gave a complaint dated 31.01.2005 against the plaintiffs to the Superintendent of Police, Krishna, by marking a copy to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. (c) On 07.01.2006 the plaintiffs, their mother Kusuma and her husband made a proposal for compromise. The plaintiffs, their mother, their sister and another person proposed that they would sell the suit property for valuable consideration. On 07.01.2006 the 3rd defendant and his wife were taken to Pedana by force and they made 3rd defendant to purchase stamp papers in his name, got computerized two sale deeds and the plaintiffs received sale consideration of Rs.1,05,500/- under Document No.34 of 2006 and Rs.1,57,000/- under Document No.33 of 2006 and presented the above documents before the Registrar and those two documents were registered. In order to return the above mentioned blank documents, the plaintiffs, their people, M.V.V. Subba Rao and others by force obtained “Oppudala Patram” from 3rd defendant and his wife. (d) The defendants came to know only on 07.01.2006 about the alleged Will, dated 18.08.2000 executed by Ranga Rao. The said Will is not a genuine document and it was pressed into service by the plaintiffs, their mother and Muddineti Ramadas by using the above mentioned blank signed papers. The said Will is not binding on the defendants. Mother of the plaintiffs was not the wife of said Ranga Rao and the wife of Ranga Rao is Padmavathi, who was alive. (e) The plaintiffs having sold away the suit property want to threaten the defendants by filing this suit, anticipating that the defendants would take action against them as per law. The defendants got issued a legal notice, dated 03.06.2005 to the tenants, basing on the Will, dated 02.01.2005 executed by Ranga Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind, claiming usufruct from the landed properties of Ranga Rao. The plaintiffs, their mother and others have taken away the original Will, on 02.01.2005 from the defendants at the time of obtaining their signatures on said “Oppudala Patram”. (f) The said M.V.V. Subba Rao has taken away two registered sale deeds at the time of obtaining the signatures of 3rd defendant and his wife on said “Oppudala Patram”. The 3rd defendant was financially sound and he purchased the suit property with his funds, he purchased several properties to an extent of Ac.2-36 cents and ever since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the Will, dated 18.08.2000 executed by late Muddineti Ranga Rao is a fabricated one, as pleaded in the written statement? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancel the registered sale deeds bearing Nos.33/2006 and 34/2006, dated 07.01.2006 on the file of Pedana Sub-Registrar, Krishna District and to intimate the same to the Sub-Registrar, Pedana? (3) Whether the defendants can be directed to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs within the time fixed by the Court and in case of their failure, to evict them through due process of law and put the plaintiffs in possession of the plaint schedule properties? (4) Whether the defendants can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- per year to the plaintiffs towards future profits from the agriculture year 2006-07? (5) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.20 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.26 part from Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.156 of 2018 and the defendants filed cross objections aggrieved by the finding given by the trial Court to the effect that “the defendants and plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that Ex.A.1-Will, dated 18.08.2000 executed by late Muddineti Ranga Rao is a fabricated document” in A.S.No.156 of 2018 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, wherein, the following points came up for consideration. (1) Whether the registered sale deeds under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 are liable to be cancelled? (2) Whether the defendants can be directed to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to future profits as prayed for? (4) Whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any irregularity or illegality? (5) If so, whether interference of this Appellate Court is required to meet the ends of justice? (6) To what relief? 11. The learned I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the plaintiffs/appellants and in favour of the defendants/respondents and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.188 of 2006 filed the present second appeals before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for appellants and heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for respondents. 13. 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 CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial questions of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a questions 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 Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that; 1(2007) 8 SCC 155 “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 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 questions of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising substantial questions of law.” 14. The plaintiffs 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 questions of law. 15. These second appeals are filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeals are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any substantial questions of law. The contention of the appellants is that the common judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is contrary to law and that the second appeals may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. 16. It was contended by the appellants that they are seeking relief of cancellation of originals of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 registered sale deeds on two grounds viz., (1) fraud, coercion and undue influence and (2) no consideration was passed. Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines as follows:- 4. Particulars to be given where necessary.—In all cases in which the party pleading reliefs on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. Admittedly, in the case on hand, plaint is silent about the particulars which are required to be proved as per Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, before filing of the suit, the plaintiffs have not yet issued any legal notice to the defendants alleging that they obtained originals of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 sale deeds by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence. The date of alleged sale deeds are 07.01.2006 and the suit is filed on 18.09.2006. The plaintiffs are remained silent from 07.01.2006 to 18.09.2006 without taking any steps. As stated supra, they did not issue any legal notice to the defendants prior to filing of the suit or they did not lodge any complaint before the police alleging that the respondents/defendants have obtained sale deeds by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence. 17. The plaintiffs relied on the evidence of P.W.2. He stated in his evidence in chief affidavit that his signature, signatures of Mekala Rama Dasu, T. Srinivasa Rao and plaintiffs were obtained in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 forcibly and the plaintiffs did not sign voluntarily on originals of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 and no consideration paid to the plaintiffs as mentioned in originals of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 sale deeds. In cross examination he admits that he has not gone through the contents of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3, as such, he does not know about the contents of sale deeds and he came to know about the contents of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 through the plaintiffs. He further admits that he has not gone through the contents of his evidence affidavit before he signed the same and at the time of preparing the same, P.W.1 was also present. He further admits he does not know anything about the details of link documents of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 and also how many number of link documents. He further admits that there is no need for Mekala Subba Rao to invite him for the purpose of execution of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and by that time they returned from Pedana to wine shop of Mekala Subba Rao, the registration of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 were completed and he did not make any written complaint before the police that he has got life threat from Mekala Subba Rao and 3rd defendant till this date and 3rd defendant did not obtain any deed of conveyance under the guise of papers obtained by him from the plaintiffs in respect of the properties of Ranga Rao. Therefore, his evidence is not at all supported by the plaintiffs to prove the alleged fraud, coercion and undue influence. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that no issue has been framed by the trial Court with regard to the alleged fraud, coercion and undue influence and that the entire case has been vitiated. In the case on hand, both the parties to the suit transaction are aware about the controversy of suit, both the parties engaged Advocates and all the link documents were handed over to the defendants and they are in possession of the plaint schedule property. In the case of Beereddy Dasaratharami Reddy vs. V. Manjunath and another2, the Apex Court held as follows: “Omission to frame an issue as required under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not vitiate the trial where the parties go to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead evidence in support of their respective contentions and to refute contentions of the other side”. In a case of Katta Venkata Lakshmi v. Katta Subba Rao and others3, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: “Though specific issue relating to the joint family status was not framed, both the plaint and written statement contain sufficient averments pertaining to this aspect. Thus, the parties have gone to trial being 2 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 65 3 2014(5) ALD 11 conscious of the fact that one of the disputes for adjudication was the joint family status. Therefore, on the facts of the case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused merely on account of non-framing of specific issue relating to the joint family status”. As stated supra, in the case on hand, no issue has been framed by the trial Court with regard to the alleged fraud, coercion and undue influence and both the parties are aware about the controversy of the suit and the same is not disputed by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the plaint schedule property and their names are mutated in the revenue records. 19. The evidence of P.W.1 is not at all supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3. The appellants have not disputed the execution of originals of Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. The contention of the appellants that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 procured the sale deeds by using undue influence by playing fraud and coercion. The law is well settled that when a plea of fraud is raised, it is required to be elaborated explaining the circumstances. In the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is not at all supported by P.W.2 and P.W.3. Admittedly, the plaint silent as to the nature of fraud or undue influence and coercion that is said to have been played. It is not the case of the appellants that they are illiterate persons having admitted execution of sale deeds, the appellants cannot take a plea that the sale deeds are not supported by consideration. Since the alleged fraud, coercion and undue influence is not at all proved by the appellants, I am unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the sale deeds are not yet supported by consideration. 20. Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 go to show that the 1st defendant purchased Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the 2nd defendant purchased Item No.2 of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs by paying sale consideration to them. In the plaint also the plaintiffs pleaded that they lost the possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants came into possession of the suit schedule property, the same is not disputed by the appellants. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants by setting aside the finding of the learned trial Judge in the judgment to the effect that “the defendant and plaintiffs did not produce any document to show that Ex.A.1 Will, dated 18.08.2000 executed by late M. Ranga Rao is fabricated document”. It is not the case of both the parties that Ex.A.1 Will is not a genuine document. The case of the plaintiffs is that they got title in the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.1 Will. The case of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is also that the plaintiffs are having right and title in the plaint schedule property and that they have obtained sale deeds under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 from the plaintiffs. The title of the plaintiffs i.e., vendors in the plaint schedule property is not yet disputed by the defendants. The findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Judge were based on proper appreciation of evidence and 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. 21. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, these second appeals are devoid of merits and are liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki4. In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no 4 AIR 2006 SC 1975 substantial question of law is involved, therefore, these second appeals are liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 22. In the result, both the Second Appeal Nos.331 of 2023 and 462 of 2023 are dismissed at the stage of admission. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed. __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. DT. 19.02.2025. PGR