APHC010103802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI SECOND APPEAL NO: 291/2025 Between: 1. MUGGU SARASWATHI, W/O GADDENNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. DOMESTIC, RESIDENT OF TALADA VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. AVALA SRINU, S/o Narasimhulu, Aged 43 years. Cultivation, Resident of Talada Village, santhakviti Mandal,Srikakulam district ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against orders pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree dt.28.11.2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2013 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge at Rajam and consequently set aside the Judgment and Decree dt 19.09.2023 in A.S.No.02 of 2019 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and pass 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 delay of 43 days in filing the second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dt.19.09.2023 in A.S.No.02 of 2019 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam 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 delay of 408 days in representing the second appeal in S.A.NO. 291 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 grant temporary injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, legal heirs, successors from alienating the suit schedule property measuring 72 cents out of Ac 0.01 cents in Sy No. 130 of Talada Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District bounded by: East-Kenguva Kalidas tilled house, South-Rasta, West-Panchayat building in one cent of petitioner’s house site, North-Aavala Appayya house more particularly described in suit schedule property in O.S.No.19 of 2013 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam pending the disposal of second appeal and pass s Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. AVALA SRINU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT Plaintiff in the suit filed the above second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2023 in A.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. Page 3 of 10 3. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.19 of 2013 seeking a perpetual injunction. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff was granted a house site patta in Rekha No.46/98 for an extent of Ac.0.01 cent in S.No.130 of Talada village on 06.03.1999 by the M.R.O., Santhakaviti. Ever since the assignment, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff gave half of the site for the construction of the panchayat building on the western side of the site. The plaintiff constructed a thatched shed for temporary residence, and it was collapsed due to the rains. The plaint schedule property is a vacant site. Plaintiff made an application on 18.02.2013 before the Collector in the grievance cell to sanction a house in the said site. The defendant, without having any right or possession over the plaint schedule property, is proclaiming to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement and contended, inter alia, that the correct survey number of plaint schedule property is 132. The defendant specifically denied issuance of the patta to the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the panchayat building was constructed about 10 years ago. The Relli people of Patha Relli veedhi donated land for the construction of the panchayat office. The plaint schedule property of an extent Ac.0.03 cents originally belongs to Ragolu Terejamma and seven others situated in Patha Relli street. The Government issued houses and house sites in the colony at different places to the Relli people, who removed their thatched houses on the said Patha Relli veedhi and shifted to colony houses. The owners of Patha Relli veedhi sold away their sites to others under different documents. Ragolu Terejamma and others sold the schedule property to the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2012. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment schedule property by keeping hay heap and tying his cattle, and eventually prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. During the trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.Ws.2 to 4. Ex.B1 was marked. 6. The Trial Court, on careful appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the schedule property. The Trial Court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove gifting half of the assigned land for the construction of the panchayat building and eventually dismissed the suit. The appellant Court, being the final fact-finding Court, considered both oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 19.09.2023. Assailing the same, the present second appeal was filed. 7. The second appeal was filed on 28.02.2024, and it was returned with certain objections. Thereafter, it was represented with a delay of 408 days. The delay in representation was condoned vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 dated 07.05.2025. The appeal was filed with a delay of 43 days. Notice was ordered to the respondent, and despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the delay of 43 days in filing the second appeal was condoned by a separate order dated 10.10.2025. 8. Heard Sri Upendra, learned counsel representing Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for appellant. 9. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Courts below failed to consider Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in a proper perspective. He would also submit that the plaintiff proved her possession over the plaint schedule property by marking Ex.A1. 10. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: 1) Whether the Courts failed to appreciate the Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in a proper perspective? 2) Whether the plaintiff establishes possession over the plaint schedule property? 10. As narrated supra, the case of the plaintiff is that the then M.R.O issued a house site patta of an extent of Ac.0.01 cent in S.No.130 of Talada village, Santhakaviti Mandal, in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.1999. Further pleaded that the plaintiff gifted half of the assigned land to the local authority for the construction of a building, and accordingly, the Gram Panchayat constructed a building on the western side of the site. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining half of the assigned land. The defendant denied the survey number and would contend that the plaint schedule property is in S.No.132, and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2012. 11. The boundaries in Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 are the same; however, the survey numbers are different. The extent of land as per Ex.A1 is Ac.0.01 cent, and the extent of land as per Ex.B1 is Ac.0.03 cents. The plaintiff could not place any evidence before the Court regarding his gifting half of the assigned land for the construction of the panchayat building. In fact, P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted that the residents of Patha Relli street were provided houses by the Government, and the said families shifted to the new colony, and while moving to the new colony, the residents sold away their houses. In fact, the plaintiff admitted that vendors of the defendant belong to Old Relli Street. 12. The trial Court in Para No.7 (vi) observed that P.W.1 in her cross- examination categorically admitted that she was aware of the fact that the defendant purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed. P.W.3 also deposed about the defendant purchasing the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed. 13. The trial Court recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the schedule property, and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Courts below failed to consider Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, in fact, as observed supra, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered both oral and documentary evidence and recorded concurrent findings. 14. 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 appreciated the same judiciously. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is the 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. 15. 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 1 (2022) 20 SCC 199 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. 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.” 16. 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:— 22024 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. 17. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the trial court recorded findings after considering both oral and documentary evidence and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. 18. 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, and it does not call for any interference of this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. This Court finds no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, involved in the present second appeal. Hence, the second appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed, however, without costs. 19. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD