1 APHC010362922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 513/2025 Between: 1. VAIRAKKA, W/O.KARAPPADDEVAR (SINKHARAJU), AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO. 18/820-C4, 60 FEET ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT AND 1. N RAMADEVI, W/O LATE N. SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO. 17-578-C THILAK NAGAR, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENKAT CHALASANI The Court made the following: 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Sri V. Nitesh, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri C. Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the sole Respondent. 2. The Plaintiff/Respondent has filed O.S.No.141/2016 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty. The Suit is filed for the recovery of money of an amount of Rs.9,97,200/-. The Defendant in the Suit contested the claim made by the Plaintiff inasmuch as the Defendant has agreed receipt of part consideration and denied the receipt of balance consideration. The issue No.2 is framed for the said purpose, which reads as under: “Whether the suit mortgage deed is devoid of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- as pleaded by the defendant?” 3. The trial Court has answered the said issue in paras 14 to 16 and had decreed the Suit with costs vide Decree and Judgment dated 09.09.2022. The unsuccessful Defendant carried the matter in an Appeal by filing Appeal Suit bearing No.6 of 2023 before the VI Additional District Judge at Gooty. Having considered the contentions of the Defendant/Appellant and the Plaintiff/Respondent, the First Appellate Court has also framed the issues and had answered the said issues against the Defendant/Appellant therein vide Judgment dated 08.01.2025. The Appellate Court has confirmed the findings rendered by the trial Court. The aggrieved Defendant filed the present Second Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken this Court through the substantial questions of law raised by the Appellant. This Court has perused the same. 5. Having noted the above facts, having gone through the substantial questions of law raised by the Defendant/Appellant herein and having taken note of the fact that the findings rendered by the trial Court are affirmed by the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that there is no substantive question of law involved in the present Second Appeal. This apart, this Court 3 has also considered I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay of 92 days. Having considered the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Application, this Court has dismissed the said Application for condonation of delay. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present Second Appeal both on merits as well as on delay. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:24.09.2025 Vns