IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.170 of 2025 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 22-11 -2024 in A.S.No. 190 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Nellore, confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 30-10-2018 in O.S.No.09 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Kdvur, SPSR Nellore District. Between; 1. Parisineti Subhashini, W/oJite Prasad, aged about 56 years, R/o.Rayaji Street, Alluri Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. 2. Parisineti Lathish, S/o.late Prasad, aged about 35 years, R/o.Rayaji Street, Alluri Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. 3. Parisineti Sirisha, D/o.late Prasad, aged about 32 years, R/o.Rayaji Street, Alluri Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. 4. Parisineti Rajesh, S/o.late; Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o.Rayaji Street, Alluri Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. ...Appellants/Appeilants/ Defendants 2 to 5 r V AND 1. Vedam Krishna Murthy, S/OJate Vishwanadham, aged about 75 years R/o. Alluri Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. > Vedam Kamala, W/o.late Seetharamaiah, aged about 69 years, R/o.Ambattur, Chennai-600053. 2. i 4- Vedam Sailaja, W/o.MarudbiJri Ramakrishna, aged about 56 years R/o.Vetapalem, Prakasam District. Vedam Rama, W/o.Purnanam Prakasam, aged about 56 years, R/o.Dewan's Road, Ernakulam, Cochin, Kerala State. 3. 4. Vedam Usha, W/o.Late Timmavajjhala Prabhakar, aged about 61 years R/0.95, Panchayath Road, S.G.Halli, Basaveswara Nagar III Stage, Bangalore, Karnataka State. 5. ...Respondents/Respondents 1 to 51 Plaintiffs 2 to 6 Puranam Abhay, S/o.Puranam Prakasam, aged about 39 years R/o.Flat No.7, 24*'’ Street, Ramar Koil Street, Sivasakthi Nagar, Annanur, Avadi Car shed;?Ghennai-600109. 6. ...Respondent/Respondent No.6/ Defendant No.6 7. Prasad Textiles, rep.by its Proprietor Parsineti Prasad (Died) ...Respondent/Defendant No.1 8. Vedam Saraswathamma, W/o.late Viswanadham, aged 80 years, Rep.by her GPA Vedam Krishna Murthy. ...Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 •i' -' (Respondents 6 to 8 are not necessary parties in the above appeal) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the 7. / High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including execution pursuant to the Decree and Judgment dated 30-10- 2018 in O.S.No.09 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Kovur by confirming the Decree and Judgment dated 14-11-2024 in A.S.No.190 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge at Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the above second appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Sal Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy The Court made the following Judgment: % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No. 170 OF 2Q2S JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 22.11.2024, in Appeal Suit No. 190 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby judgment and decree 30.10.2018, in Original Suit No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kowur, were confirmed. dated 2. Appellants herein are defendants 2 to 5, respondents 1 to 5 herein are plaintiffs 2 to 6, respondent No.6 herein is defendant No.6, respondent No.l herein is defendant No.l and respondent No.8 herein is plaintiff No. 1, in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kowur seeking the relief of declaration of title of plaintiffs 2 to 6 in respect of the plaint schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 6 and also direct 2 the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.43,200/- to the plaintiffs 2 6 towards mesne profits for wrongful to use and occupation of the property by defendants 2 to 5 from 01.12.1999 plaint schedule to 30.11.2002 and for costs of the suit. 4. The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as under. 1=“ plaintiff is mother of plaintiffs 2, mother-in-law of plaintiff No.3. Seetharamaiah, 12.10.2000. 4, 5 and 6 and Plaintiff No.3 is wife of one late who is son of Is. plaintiff, who Plaintiffs inherited the plaint schedule died on property of 1st plaintiff, his from ancestors. After death of husband brother Vedam Venkat Ramanaiah managing the properties shop to 1st was of the plaintiffs, defendant for He let out the plaint schedule a monthly rent of Rs.600/- in the month of February, 1996, for cariying on textile sales under the and used to collect name and style ‘Prasad Textiles rent from 1 st He was unmarried and died in defendant during his life time, testate on 22.5.1998. There the plaintiffs. are no legal heirs to him, After his death, the plaintiffs except succeeded to his estate. Thereafter, as 1st defendant failed to towards the plaint schedule Vedam Seetharamaiah pay monthly rent shop, 1st plaintiffs eldest son got issued a legal notice dated 'V 3 09.02.1999 to 1st defendant calling upon him to vacate the plaint schedule shop and deliver vacant possession thereof. As there was no response from l^t defendant, l^t plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.3 of 1999 before the Rent Controller, Kowur seeking eviction of 1st defendant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. In the said case, 1st defendant filed counter denying title of 1st plaintiff and stating that 2^^ defendant, who is his wife, purchased the plaint schedule shop from late Vedam Venkata Ramanaiah and 1st plaintiff, under an agreement of sale dated 06.08.1997 and 2^^ defendant is in possession of the schedule property, and thus, denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. It is stated that the said agreement of sale dated 06.08.1997 is fabricated and forged one, and in view of the stand taken by 1st defendant herein, in the aforesaid R.C.C., the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. 5. 2rtti defendant filed written statement, which is adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 5, denying the material averments in the plaint and stating inter alia that 1st plaintiff and said Vedam Venkat Ramanaiah, representing that they are owners of the schedule property, sold the property to her on 06.08.1997 for 4 Rs. 1,00,000/- under an agreement of sale, and after consideration, they delivered receipt of entire sale possession of the schedule property to her, and si possession and owner, and that the plaintiffs since then, she has been i enjoyment of the in peaceful same as absolute nothing to do with the are said property. 6- Separate written in the same lines statement filed by Defendant as that of written No.4 is also statement filed by defendant No.2. 7. Defendant No.6, who got impleaded i separate written statement admittin in the suit, filed g relationship with plaintiffs are legal heirs of Vedam plaintiff, and stating inter alia that Venkat Ramanaiah who is his plaintiffs and that by the date maternal grandmother. of death of 1 on 7.1.2006, he St was studying and he traced last Will in Chennai iin Engineering College, and testament dated 27.07.2005 when he visited her house thereafter. Accordin which i bequeathed i of the plaint schedule g to the Will, the plaint IS a part of ‘A’ schedule schedule property. property in the will, he became absolute property pursuant to the was in his favour and hence owner said Will after 5 death of l^t plaintiff. It is further stated in the written statement that the Memo filed by the plaintiffs 2 to 6 before the trial Court after death of plaintiff stating that plaintiff died intestate and they are the successors-in-interest of her estate, is incorrect. 8. defendant filed additional written statement denying that defendant No.6 is son of plaintiff No.5 and stating that the Will dated 27.07.2005 propounded by him executed by 1 St plaintiff in his favour, is forged and fabricated for the purpose of this suit. 9. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court. 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the plaint schedule property ? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, as prayed for ? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits from 01.11.1999 to 31.10.2002 from the defendants ? Additional issue framed on 16.7.2012 : Whether the will dated 27.07.2005 is true, valid or binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 ? 6 Additional i framed on 26.0.^ • 1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 06.08. 1997 is true and genuine ? 2) If not is so, it is binding on the plaintiff ? 10. During trial of the suit, P.Ws.l and 2 Exs.AI to A. 130 were examined and and Ex.Xl plaintiffs. On behalf of were got marked, on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.l to 5 were examined and Ex.Bl was got marked. The trial Court 11. after appreciation of the suit with costs, vide i ' evidence, judgment and decree 2 to 6 are absolute property and they are entitled to on record, decreed the dated 30.10.2018, owners of the plaint schedule recover defendants 2 declaring that plaintiffs possession of the said property, and directing to 5 to deliver plaint within three months to plaintiffs 2 schedule property to the plaintiffs 2 to 6 Rs.43,200/- Challenging the defendants 2 to 5 file of the III and to pay a sum of to 6 towards mesne profits. the appellants herein, preferred Appeal Suit No. Additional District same, who are 190 of 2018 on the Judge, Nellore, and the impugned judgment and decree appellate Court, vide the i 22.11.2024, dismissed dated the Appeal Suit confirming the judgment 7 and decree passed by the trial Court. Challenging the the present Second Appeal is preferred. same, The substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in this Second Appeal are as follows : “a) Whether the decree and judgment of the appellate court is in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC ? b) Whether the court findings as Ex.Bl is sustainable on the absence of relief sought on the same ? c) Whether the both courts properly interpreted the documentary evidence properly or not ? d) Whether the suit for declaration, without getting succession certificate by LRs of deceased, can be maintained ? Whether the Trial court is justify in giving findings without framing issues on the pleadings of the parties ?” 12. e) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that 2^^ defendant became owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.Bl-agreement of sale executed by l^t plaintiff and Vedam Venkat Ramanaiah and she is in possession of the said property as absolute owner and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and both the Courts below have 13. not considered these aspects in proper perspective and erred in decreeing the suit. He submits that substantial questions of 8 law are involved in the Second Appeal for consideration hence, he , and prays to admit Second Appeal and judgments passed by both the Courts below. set aside the 14. On the other hand, the learned No.l contended that both the questions of fact i on Ex.Bl and rightly decreed the below, counsel for the respondent Courts below dealt with the in proper perspective, and not placed reliance suit, and that that the Courts the oral and upon proper appreciation of both documentary^ evidence on record, no grounds to interfere with the gave concurrent findings, and there are same, and that there questions of law, to admit the Second Appeal, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Second Appeal. are no questions of law, much less substantial 15. There cannot be Section 100 C.P.C., the first appellate court has can neither challenge the decree question of law. is satisfied that the The word ‘substantial’ as any dispute that, under the amended a party aggrieved by the decree passed by no absolute right of appeal, on a question of fact He nor on a Second Appeal lies only where the High Court case involves a substantial question of law. qualifying ‘question of law’. means 9 and conveys - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important, considerable, fairly arguable, in contradiction with - technical, formal, or no substance, no consequence or academic only. A substantial question of law should directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties. A question of law can be said to be substantial between the parties if the decision in appeal turns one way or the other on the particular view of law. But, if the question does not affect the decision, it cannot be said to be substantial question between the parties. Recording a finding without any evidence on record; disregard or non-consideration of relevant or admissible evidence; taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible evidence; perverse finding- are some of the questions, which involve substantial questions of law. 16. The suit is filed for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, eviction of defendants therefrom and for mesne profits. It is the case of plaintiffs that they inherited the plaint schedule property and let out to defendant, and he failed to pay monthly rent towards the plaint schedule shop and as such 1st plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.3 of 1999 before the Rent Controller, Kowur for eviction of 1®^ defendant, wherein l^t 10 defendant denied title of wife who is 2nd defendant. the landlords and set up title of his Hence, the suit is filed by the IS that 1st plaintiff and plaintiffs. Defence of defendants i Vedam Venkat Ramanaiah, the schedule said representing that they property to her on 06.08.1997 are owners of property, sold the for Rs. 1,00,000/- under an agreement of sale, and after consideration, they delivered receipt of entire sale possession of the schedule property to her, and sisince then, she has been i enjoyment of the in peaceful possession and same as absolute nothing to do with the owner, and that the plaintiffs property. are said 17. plaintiff examined himself exhibited Exs.Al to A130 i writing expert and Ex.Xl i defendants, defendants D.Ws.l and 2 and Ex.Bl- as P.W.l during trial and in support of his case. P.W.2 is hand- is opinion given by him. On behalf 1 and 2 got examined themselves of as agreement of sale dated 06.08.1997 D.Ws.3 to 5 was marked on their behalf, scribe of Ex.Bl. schedule are attestors and in her evidence that plaint D.W.2 admitted i property and other properties of Venkata Ramanaiah are ancestral properties and Viswanadham. D.W.5 also admitted that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property ^ ; II of Vedam Saraswathamma and Venkata Ramaniah. admitted that the plaint schedule D.W. 1 also property is part and parcel of entire property of Viswanadham and Venkata Ramanaiah having inherited by them from their D.W. 1 admitted that 2nd plaintiff is son, and plaintiffs 4 to 6 are children, of plaintiff, and that after death of Viswanadham (husband ancestors. of 1st Ramanaiah used to manage the entire property and he was unmarried and died on 22.5.1998. D.W.l further admitted that after death of Venkata Ramanaiah, his entire properties were managed by 2nd plaintiff. In such a case, when the plaint schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiffs, either 1st plaintiff or the said Venkata Ramanaiah has no right to alienate the same to 2nd defendant. plaintiff), his younger brother Venkata 18. The plaintiffs denied execution of Ex.Bl. At the instance sent to hand-writing expert P.W.2, who rendered Ex.Xl-opinion, opining that the said agreement is of the plaintiffs, Ex.Bl was a forged document. Further more, Ex.Bl is not a registered document. Hence, transfer of an immovable property cannot be effected under the said document and no title passes under the said document. Therefore, defendants cannot derive right over the plaint schedule property from Ex.Bl. any In view of 12 the above, it can be concluded that Ex.Bl iIS pressed into service only in order to squat over the plaint schedule property Considering the evidence trial Court rightly decreed the for the meager rent of Rs.600/-. record in right perspective, the suit, and the same on was rightly affirmed by the appellate Court. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the, courts below is shown to be evidence none of the findings of contraiy to the been rightly are no grounds to concurrent findings of the Courts below IS no question of law, much substantial as to admit the Second Appeal. perverse or on record, decided by both the Courts interfere with the questions of fact. There i The findings of fact have below. There on question of law. so 20. In the result, the Second Appeal of admission, is dismissed, at the stage confirming judgment 22.11.2024, in Appeal Suit No.190 OF 2018 Additional District Judge, Nellore. and decree. dated on the file of the III No costs. The defendants today, to vacate the plaint over vacant possession thereof. are granted six months’ time from schedule premises and to hand to the plaintiffs. 13 / Miscellaneous petitions Appeal shall stand closed. pending, if any, in the Second Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The III Additional District Judge, at Nellore, SPSR Nellore 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Kovur, SPSR Nellore 3. One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies District. District. TK vna HIGH COURT \ DATED:25/04/2025 JUDGMENT 5 2 3 JUN 2025 S SA.No.170 of 2025 milw Current Seciion ^^^fSPATCW]^ OI^AD^/s^ON ^ SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE