APHC010683862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SECOND APPEAL NO: 901/2025 Between: 1. ATCHUTA RAMANADHAM, S/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6/180-1 TO 6/180/9, OPP. DISTRICT LIBRARY, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SRIKAKULAPU LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, (DIED) 2. SRIKAKULAPU VENKATESWARA RAO DIED, A 3. JALDU SOMA SATYA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. LATE BABURAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.EDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. JALDU UMA SATYA RAMA SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO DIED, A 5. ANNAM SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. NIZAMPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. ANNAM LEELA PRASAD, S/O. LATE RAGHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.CHEMMANAGIRIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. ANNAM JYOTHI VENKATA ASHOK KUMARI, S/O. LEELA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. KHOJJILLIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. URIMI VENKATA RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.BAPANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.CHAKIREVUPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. -2- S.A. No.901 OF 2025 Date of judgment:26.12.2025 9. JALDU LAKSHMI VENKATA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE JUSR SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PROPERTIES, R/O.24/277, RAMANAIDUPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 10. NAMBURU SUBHASHINI SATYA KAMALA NAGAMANI, W/O. VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. KRISHNANAIDU STREET, TENALI.GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. JALDU LAKSHMI SRINIVASA SUDHA SATYA DURGA NARAYANA, S/O.LATE JUSR SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, EMPLOYMENT, R/O.HYDERABAD. 12. SRIKAKULAPU NARASIMHA GUPTA, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O.GODUGUPET, MACHILIPATNARN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 13. SRIKAKULAPU UDAYALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. CHEMMANAGIRIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 14. SRIKAKULAPU VISWESWARA NAGA SURYA CHAKRA AYYAPPA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. CHEMMANAGIRIPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 15. ATCHUTA SIVAPRASAD, S/O.RAMANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 6/180-1 TO 6/180-9, OPP. DISTRICT LIBRARY, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 16. ATCHUTA KISHORE KUMAR, S/O. RAMANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 39. YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6/180-1 TO 6/180-9,. OPP. DISTRICT LIBRARY, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 17. NIDAMANURU DURGA MALLESWARA RAO, S/O.RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 6/180-1 TO 6/180-9, OPP. DISTRICT LIBRARY, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 18. KUNCHAVARAPU DURGA PRASAD, S/O. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 6/180-1 TO 6/180-9, OPP. DISTRICT LIBRARY, FORT ROAD, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 15 TO 18 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ABOVE SECOND APPEAL) ...RESPONDENT(S): -3- S.A. No.901 OF 2025 Date of judgment:26.12.2025 Appeal against orders aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dt.06-10- 2025 in A.S. No. 60 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam whereby confirming the Decree and Judgment dt. 26-04-2016 in O.S.No. 256 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam, 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including eviction pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 26-04-2016 in O.S.No. 256 of 2006 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam which was confirmed by the decree and Judgment dated 06-10-2025 in A.S. No. 60 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the above S.A., and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLAVOLU NIKITHA The Court made the following: -4- S.A. No.901 OF 2025 Date of judgment:26.12.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SECOND APPEAL NO:901 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and Smt.M.V.Ramana Kumari, the learned counsel, representing Ms.Mallavolu Nikitha, the learned counsel for the Caveat Petitioners and Respondents 3, 6, 7 and 12 in the second appeal. 2. The Appellant is the first defendant in O.S. No. 256 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against him and other defendant for their eviction from the plaint scheduled property, to deliver vacant possession of the same to them and for recovery of arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.1,84,260/- for the period from October 2003 till September 2006, together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realisation. 3. The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint scheduled property. The defendants were inducted as tenants in the property long back from the time of their forefather. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property, recovery of possession of the same and for arrears of rent as detailed supra. The suit was decreed in the trial court. Challenging the said judgment and -5- S.A. No.901 OF 2025 Date of judgment:26.12.2025 decree, the defendants preferred the first appeal before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The said first appeal came to be dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, only the first defendant filed the present second appeal, assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court. 4. The ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint scheduled property is not denied. Similarly, the lease transaction in respect of the plaint schedule property as pleaded is also not disputed. After considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court decreed the suit and the same was confirmed in the first appellate court. Thus, the two fact finding courts have recorded concurrent findings that the defendants are the tenants and thereby ordered for their eviction from the plaint schedule property and decreed the suit as prayed for. 5. In the second appeal, the defendant could not make out any case warranting interference of this Court by showing that any substantial question of law is involved to entertain the second appeal. When the suit is decreed on factual findings recorded by the Trial Court and the first appellate court and when there is no substantial question of law is involved, this Court absolutely see no valid ground to admit the appeal even for hearing. -6- S.A. No.901 OF 2025 Date of judgment:26.12.2025 6. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, as the first defendant is doing business by running supermarket in the plaint scheduled property, four more months time from today is granted for eviction. The defendant shall vacate the property within four months and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. If he fails to vacate the same and deliver vacant possession of the said property to the plaintiffs within the time stipulated above, the plaintiffs are at liberty to initiate execution proceedings for eviction and for recovery of possession of the property. No order as to costs. 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this second appeal shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY BV