APHC010021432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 417/2025 Between: 1. TIMMAPATRUNI SRINU, SON OF MARIDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.33-14-261/1, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KADAGALA SRINIVASA RAO, son of Appalaramuluy, aged about 49 years. Business, Resident of Door No. 1-87, Parampeta Village, Regidi, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against orders The above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No. 13 of 2022 dated 11.07.2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam by confirming the decree and order passed in O.S.No.97 of 2017 dated 11.03.2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam 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 to condone the delay of 84 days in presentation of SA No. 417 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 2 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 to condone the delay of 116 days in representation of S.A.No.417 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 3 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 to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the S.A.No.417 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO This Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT Plaintiff in the suit filed the above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2024 in A.S.No.13 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022 in O.S.No.97 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.97 of 2017 against the defendant seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.04.2013 and to direct the Court to deliver the property or in alternative for refund of amount with interest. 4. Case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, in brief, is that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of defendant and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2013. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement and the defendant agreed to alienate the property for Rs.3,25,000/-. An agreement of sale was entered into on 21.04.2013 and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000/- in the presence of attestors and scribe at Visakhapatnam. The defendant agreed to execute a registered sale deed within 12 months, after receiving the balance sale consideration. Plaintiff demanded the defendant to perform his part of contract by expressing his ready and willingness, however, the defendant postponed the same. Plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 28.09.2015, and the same was returned. Thereafter, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra. 5. a) The defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments in the plaint. It was contended, inter alia, that the defendant neither executed the agreement of sale dated 21.04.2013 nor received advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. Plaintiff is a financier and doing business in the name and style of Vinay Finance at Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. On 13.12.2011, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff obtained signed blank cheque of State Bank of Hyderabad, MVP colony, Visakhapatnam and signed blank promissory notes, signed blank non judicial stamp papers and obtained signatures and thumb impressions of defendant and his wife on green papers. The defendant paid nearly Rs.2,50,000/-, but the plaintiff did not return the aforementioned instruments or papers. Page 4 of 10 b) The defendant gave a police complaint in III Town Police Station, MVP Zone, Visakhapatnam and later approached the print media and a news was published in Andhra Jyothi newspaper, Visakhapatnam on 17.12.2015. Thereafter, the police registered the case in crime number 239 of 2015 on 18.12.2015. The plaintiff also got filed a suit O.S.No.621 of 2015 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the defendant in the name of Gonnabathula Venkateswara Rao for recovery of Rs.2,80,000/-, based on the promissory note. c) Plaintiff has to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale. Plaintiff high handedly grabbed the suit schedule property and erected cement poles, and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined attestor and scribe as P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. The Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. 7. The Trial Court after framing necessary issues and on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with costs by judgment and decree dated 11.03.2022. Unsuccessful Plaintiff filed appeal A.S.No.13 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was also dismissed with costs by judgment and decree dated 11.07.2024. 8. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mangena Sree Ramarao, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however the Courts below failed to consider the said aspect. He would also contend that the plaintiff proved payment of advance sale consideration, however the Courts below failed to adjudicate the same in a proper perspective. 10. Sri Mangena Sree Ramarao, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgments of the Courts below. 11. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: 1) Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved the genuineness of Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 21.04.2013, given the defense in the written statement? 2) Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below suffer from perversity warranting interference? 12. As seen from the pleadings, the plaintiff asserted the agreement of sale dated 21.04.2013 and payment of advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, out of Rs.3,25,000/-. The defendant denied the execution of agreement of sale and passing of advance sale consideration. That being the scenario, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of the sale agreement and passing of advance consideration. 13. Ex.A1 agreement of sale was scribed on two papers, one paper is Non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and the other one is conquest (green) paper. Both the Courts below meticulously considered the difference of name (signature) on both papers. On the Non-judicial stamp paper, the defendant signed as „K.Srinivas Rao‟ and on the conquest paper the signature of defendant is found as „Kadagala Srinivasa Rao‟. In the second paper, the thumb impression of defendant is also available. Plaintiff failed to explain the discrepancy. 14. P.W.2 one of the attestors of Ex A1 deposed that he attested on the stamp paper, however, his signature does not find place on Non- judicial stamp paper. In fact, his signature was available on the second page on conquest paper. 15. P.W.3, scribe of Ex.A1, also deposed that he put his signature on 50/- Non-judicial stamp paper of Ex.A1, however, his signature is available in the second page i.e. conquest paper. 16. The Courts below considered this aspect and disbelieved Ex.A1. In fact, the trial Court considered the aspect of plaintiff approaching the Court with unclean hands and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Thus, the courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact. 17. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, must confine itself to the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings of the Court below where the Courts below have exercised the discretion judicially. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is „sine qua non’ for the exercise of jurisdiction. This Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the Courts are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. If the findings are based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider relevant evidence High Court, under Section 100 of CPC can interfere. Page 7 of 10 18. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati 1 , considered the scope of Section100 CPC and held thus: 32. The principles relating to Section 100CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: 32.1. An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. 32.2. The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents and involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. 1 (2022) 20 SCC 199 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 32.3. The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Jaichand (Dead) through LRs and Others Vs. Sahnulal and Another2, considered the scope of Section100 CPC and held thus: 24. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, (1996) 6 SCC 166 : AIR 1996 SC 3521, it was held by this Court that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach another possible view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court. 25. In Kshitisn Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait, (1997) 5 SCC 438), this Court held that in the Second Appeal, the High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of law. 26. In Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, (1999) 2 SCC 471, this Court held:— 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864 “Keeping in view the amendment made in 1976, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC only on the basis of substantial questions of law which are to be framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and the Second Appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered by the High Court under Section 100 CPC without following the aforesaid procedure cannot be sustained.” 27. This Court in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722 : AIR 1999 SC 2213 held:— “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 28. It is thus clear that under Section 100, CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. 20. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. No substantial questions of law are involved in the second appeal in terms of Section 100 CPC. Hence, the second appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is Dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD