IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 9 OF 2003 Appeal under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, against the decree and judgment made in A.S No.4/1987 oh the file of the High Court of A.P dated 27.11.2001. Between: Gundlakunta Chenna Reddy, S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, Prathipadu Village, Prathipadu Taluk, .Guntur District. (L.R of the Gundlakunta Venkateswara Reddy (died)) ...Appellant/4‘'’ Respondent AND 1. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. 4. The Manager, Sri Bapathu Chenna Reddy Dharma Satram, Prathipadu Guntur District. p 5. Mule Narayana Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, 56 years, R/o. Prathipadu, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. 6. Chinnappa Reddy Rosi Reddy, S/o. Srinivasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Secunderabad. R/o. 12-11-246, Brahmanbaste, Namalaguda (Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are dismissed for default vide Court Order dated: 17-07-2007) ...Respondents/Appellants/Defendants Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M Radhakrishna Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri T S Rayalu, GP for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri V T M Prasad The Court made the following 1 APHC010092932003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 9 OF [3494] Between: G.Chennareddy ...APPELLANT . AND Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Guntur & Five Ors Counsel for the Appellant: I.Mr.M RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: I.Mr.VTM PRASAD 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS ...RESPONDENTS 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per njs,J) The Present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment in AS.No.4 of 1987, dated 27.11.2001, whereby a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.337 of'1984, dated 30.09.1986 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate. Judge, Guntur. Heard Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.S.Rayalu respondents 1 to 3. O.S.No.337 of 1987 is filed for declaration and consequential permanent injunction. In the plaint it is inter alia averred that the suit schedule property is situated in the villages of Prattipadu and Yanamadala and item No.1 is the Choultry with the appurtenant vacant that all the three items originally belong to one Bapathu Chennareddy, who had only five daughters and no sons, that in 1939 or 1940 the said Chennareddy constructed a choultry in the western portion of Door No.380/A on the extent of Ac.1-88 cents, shown as item No.1, that for the maintenance and upkeep of such choultry, he endowed Items 2 and 3, and another item in the village of Kotivanipalem, hamlet of Bodipalem and then executed a settlement deed dt.20.08.1940 in his favour as Trustee of Sri Bapathu Chenna Reddy Dharma Satram and also provided therein that after his death, three persons by name (1) the 2) Pleader, representing the learned Government 3) site. 3 plaintiff (2) Mule Ramireddy, the father of the second plaintiff and (3) Chinnapareddy Rosireddy, the grandfather of the 1 trustees etc., that the said choultry is a private Trust and the plaintiffs and the defendant are Trustees of the same and they have been managing the said property properly all these years and the choultry was not registered with the Endowments Department, being private Trust does not under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was further averred that in 1980 some persons due to village politics filed petitions before the Assistant Commissioner i.e., 2""^ defendant, pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 26.04.1983 was issued and thereafter the 4^*^ defendant passed an order dated 06.09.1983, appointing the defendant as Manager to take charge of the suit choultry from the plaintiffs. It was stated that the 1®' plaintiff filed W.RNo.8862 of 1983 challenging the consequential order dated 06.10.1983 passed by the 2 defendant pursuant to the order dated 06.09.1983, that the said Writ Petition was dismissed without deciding the issue as to whether the suit Trust is public one or not and whether the said Act gets attracted or not etc., and that the Writ Appeal No.264 of 1984 filed against the orders in Writ Petition was dismissed and thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiffs as to why the 5**^ defendant should not be given a certificate to take possession of the suit choultry etc. Further that the suit defendant as come nd Trust is a private one and the defendants 2 to 5 have no jurisdiction to ' deal with the same as it is not governed by the provisions of the Act therefore the suit for declaration that the suit choultry is a private Trust and for a consequential permanent injunction and restraining the defendants 2 to 5 from interfering with their management is instituted. The defendant remained 4) ex parte. Only the 2"'" defendant filed written statement inter alia, stating that the plaintiff has no locus standi to Dharma Satram and its file the suit, that Bapathu Chennareddi endowment is not a private Trust or a private property; that it is a public Charifable Trust Institution and endowment created for its benefit, that the said institution is a public charitable one falling within the provisions of the Act and that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A plea was also taken that the judgment in W.RNo.'8862 of 1983 operates judicata, that the alleged Trustees of Dharma Satram as res were mismanaging the Trust, its properties and misappropriating the funds of the Trust, apart from alienating the Trust properties illegally and unauthorizedly. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 adopted the written statement defendant. The 5**^ defendant filed nd filed by the 2 a separate written statement inter alia, denying the averments inter alia that the suit choultry is a private Trust, that the provisions of the Act have no application to the suit schedule property and the defendants 2 and 3 are without any manner of right trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s management. A plea that the suit is 5 barred by res judicata was also taken. Learned Trial Court formulated the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the declaration and injunction prayed for? 2) Whether the suit is barred by res judicate as stated in the written statement? 3) To what relief the parties are entitled to? Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 6 and got 5) marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, DW 1 to 6 were examined and Exs. B1 to B24 are marked. The learned Trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, answered the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs holding inter alia that the choultry in question is a private one. After discussing the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs at length and after examining Ex.A1 i.e.. Deed of Trust dated 28.09.1940, the learned Judge recorded conclusions in para No.21 of the judgment which reads as 6) follows; From the evidence on record it has emerged that the suit ‘21. choultry is a private trust created by an individual with his own funds under a deed of settlement wherein there is a provision for the members of the family of the trustees to demand accounts regarding the income and expehdttdre of the properties from the trustees.” In so far as the contention With regard to res judicata raised by the defendants 2 to 5, the learned trial Judge rejected the same in the 7) following terms: 6 ^ 23. Last but not least, I would like to point out that in the writ petition or the writ appeal referred to above, there was no finding on merits regarding the nature of the tTUsX' as such, in my opinion, the said decisions passed in the writ petition or writ appeal do not operate as res judicata. Being a private trust the suit choultry does not fall within the mischief of A.R Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and got jurisdiction to Endowments Act. As such the Civil Court has decide the nature of the trust. ..' 8) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.No.4 of 198^! wherein it was mainly contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the suit is not barred by the principle of res judicata is erroneous and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. The said argument was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge after referring to the contentions respondents / formulated a question as to “Whether the finding recorded by the learned single Judge operates as res judicata in the suiVfiled by the plaintiffs?” and while answering the same in favour of the appellants before him set aside the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.2 that the writ petition order did not operate as res judicata. In view of the said finding, the learned Judge opined that it is not necessary to examine the other aspect whether the institution is a Charitable Institution or a private Trust and not governed by the provisions of the Act Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed the appeal, against which the present LPA has been preferred. Mr. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the lower appellate court being the final court of the fact is 9) 7 not justified in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. He submits that the order under appeal is liable to be set aside as the same was passed without adhering to the mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and without framing appropriate points for determination in the appeal. It is his contention that it is mandatory on the part of the 1®'Appellate Court to formulate the issues / points for consideration separately and independently assess the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, which is lacking in the present case. While contending that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for adjudication in accordance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, the learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions: i) United Engineers and Contractors v Secretary to Government of A.P. and Ors.,^ ii) Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through LRs., v Kuruvathappa and Ors.,^ iii) Madina Begum and Another v Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Ors./ iv) Madhukar and Ors., v Sangram and Ors.,'* v) Vinod Kumar v Gangadhar^ 10) On the other hand, Mr. T.S.Rayalu, learned Government Pleader contended that the order under challenge contains cogent reasons, that ^2014) 16 see 109 ^ (2020) 4 see 313 ^(2016) 15 see 322 "(2001) 4 see 756 ^ (2015) 1 see 391 8 the learned Judge had examined the matter meticulously and the legal principle of res judicata, thus^ allowed the appeal filed by respondent authorities and there considered the are no merits warranting interference with the impugned order. Making the said submissions he urges for dismissal of the appeal. 11) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. 12) At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the arguments were advanced by the learned counsel' for the appellant on the legal aspects with reference to the above cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India. Therefore, this Court deems it not necessary delve much on the factual aspects In detail. Suffice to state that the circumstances which led to filing of the suit, the stand taken by the defendants therein and the decision of the learned trial Court are set out, in brief, in the preceding paras. 13) As noted earlier, before the learned Trial Court the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary and while discussing the same, the learned Trial Court answered the issues extracted above and answered the same in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants that they are entitled to a decree for Declaration and Injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. It also rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the defendants / respondents that the suit is-barred by the principle of res 9 judicata. In the appeal filed before this Court, by the respondents herein, the learned Judge considered the matter only with reference to the plea raised by them that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata and allowed the appeal for the said reason. Assailing that the said approach of the learned Judge and disposal of the appeal without formulating the points for consideration, much less by discussing the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellants states that the order under appeal is not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Law. Therefore, the only point that falls for consideration by this Court is “Whether the Judgment of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the legal position?’ 14) In United Engineers and Contractors case (1 Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with the appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, wherein a similar situation arose. The appellant before the Apex Court filed a suit for damages against the respondent Government and the same was decreed. On appeal, the High Court set aside the same, which was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. One of the contentions advanced was that the High Court committed an error while deciding the First Appeal in a cursory manner without meeting the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, thus the same is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred its earlier decision in H. Siddiqui v A. 10 - Ramalingam" wherein it was /nter a//a opined that “it is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of with the trial court judgment, rather it must give reasons for its decisions on each point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the point for consideration in terms of concurrence the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the High Court decided the appeal without following the procedure required undef^rder 41 Rule 31 CPC, set aside the order and remanded the matter tO||he. High Court to decide the First Appeal, in accordance with law. 15) In the said judgment reference was.also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in B..VNagesh v H..VSreenivasa Murthy^ vjhere'in it was inter alia at para No.4 held as follows; ‘4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeaf is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law' The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and "(2011) 4 see 240 ^(2010) 13 see 530 11 record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties haye a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving support of the findings.” ; . reasons in 16) In Malluru Mallappa (Dead) (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India interfered with the order passed by the High Court on the premise that while deciding the First Appeal , the requirements of Order 41 31 of CPC were not complied with. . Pointing out the distinction between the First Appeal under Sections §6 and Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC and referring to the earlier legal precedents, apart from Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, which provides the guidelines to the Appellate Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the judgment of the First Appellate Court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the First Appellate Court affirms the judgment of the trial Court it is required to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and non-observance of this requirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the First Appellant Court.” However, it opined that “when the Appellate Court agrees with the views of the trial Court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial Court and that expression of general Rule 12 ■i/”' agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court would ordinarily suffice”. 17) In Madina Begum case (3 supra), one of the questions that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was whether the High Court ought to have decided the First Appeal not only on the preliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues. Referring to the decision in Vinod Kumar case (5 supra) and the earlier three Judge Bench in Madhukar case (4 supra) wherein it was held that “sitting as a Court of First Appeal it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India alldwed the appeal opining that the High Court had only considered the issue of limitation and did not consider the other issues in the appear and that it was impermissible. 18) In Vinod Kumar case (5 supraj the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court inter alia opining as follows: “9. Being the first appellate court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, resulting in causing prejudice to the appellant whose valuable right to prosecute in the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived him of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law. It is for this reason, we are unable, to uphold the impugned judgment.” 13 19) in the present case, as is evident from the order under challenge the learned Judge had examined the matter only with reference to issue of res judicata and had not undertaken any exercise as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, which according to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, is mandatory. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to impress upon this Court that the learned single Judge considered the matter in detail, in the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court and ’the conclusion recorded by this Court, his submissions merits no acceptance. The same are accordingly rejected and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are upheld. The order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with in view of the clear legal position. Point is answered accordingly. 20) In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2001 are set aside. A.S.No.4 of 1987 is remanded for consideration afresh, in accordance with Law. No costs. ■1 21) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FICER SECTI To, 1. The Principal Subordinate Judge; Guntur, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri M Radhakrishna Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V T M Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies S.AM (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 25/04/2025 JUDGMENT LPA.No.9 of 2003 2 i» JUN 2025 jg V^Ns^jurrentSectigji^^ ALLOWING THE LETTER PATENT APPEAL