APHC010004022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NOs:12 & 14 OF 2026 S.A.No.12 of 2026 Between: 1. K ANAND, S/O AYYAVARI CHETTY. (DIED).1. K ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE K ANAND, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19-3-1/A2/C17 POSTAL COLONY, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. K ANAND, S/O AYYAVARI CHETTY. (DIED).1. K ANIL KUMAR, S/O LATE K ANAND, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19-3-1/A2/C17 POSTAL COLONY, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. K SUDEER BABU, S/O LATE K ANAND, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19-3-1/A2/C17, POSTAL COLONY, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. K PRAVEEN, S/O LATE K ANAND, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19- 3-1/A2/C17, POSTAL COLONY, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. D VENKATAKRISHNA, S/O D CHANDRA MOULI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 19-11-17, SARADA NAGAR, TIRUCHANUR BYE PASS ROAD, TIRUPATHI 2. P JANARDHAN, (DIED). ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HEMACHANDRA REDDY P 2 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: These two Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.133 of 2016, and A.S.No.105 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, respectively. The Decree and Common Judgment dated 24.06.2016 in O.S.Nos.236 of 2013 and 614 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2) O.S.No.614 of 2006 was filed for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and delivery of possession of the same after evicting the defendants. Prior to the said suit, the defendant in O.S.No.614 of 2006 filed O.S.No.406 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff in O.S.No.614 of 2006 and another. The said suit, on transfer, was renumbered as O.S.No.236 of 2013. The learned Trial Court clubbed both suits and delivered a common judgment dated 24.06.2016. It decreed the suit in O.S.No.614 of 2006 and dismissed O.S.No.236 of 2013. 3) Aggrieved by the said common judgment two appeals in A.S.No.105 of 2016 and A.S.No.133 of 2016 were filed and during the pendency of the same, the appellant died and his LRs were brought on record. Subsequently, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the said Appeals vide separate judgments dated 31.10.2025. Against the Judgment in A.S.No.113 of 2016, S.A.No.12 of 2026 was preferred, while S.A.No.14 of 2026 was filed against the Judgment in A.S.No.105 of 2016. 3 4) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy. Also heard Mr.G.Ramesh Babu, learned arguing counsel for the respondents. 5) While making preliminary submissions with reference to the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants had drawn the attention of this Court to the Docket Order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.105 of 2016. He submits that during the pendency of the said Appeal, an application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC on behalf of the appellants herein to receive additional evidence. He submits that the learned Appellate Court though rightly observed in its docket orders dated 06.02.2025 that the said petition will be considered along with the main Appeal, overlooked the said aspect and had not decided the same. He submits that the order under Appeal is therefore liable to be set aside on that ground and the matter has to be remanded for passing orders afresh. He also submits that in so far as A.S.No.133 of 2016 is concerned I.A.No.2 of 2025 was filed and though the same was to be considered along with main appeal, the learned Appellate Court did not consider the said application while deciding A.S.No.133 of 2016. 6) In the light of the said submissions, the matter was examined as to whether there was any consideration of the said applications in the orders under Appeal. The learned Appellate Court no doubt, had discussed various aspects with reference to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties in the Trial Court. However, on a close reading of the orders 4 passed by the learned Appellate Court, it appears that it has overlooked the above referred Interlocutory Applications. The learned counsel for the respondent has not pointed out the discussion, if any, made by the learned Appellate Court with reference to the petitions filed for receiving additional evidence. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the learned Appellate Court overlooked this aspect and passed the orders under Appeal without deciding the Interlocutory Applications. In view of non-consideration of IAs filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the orders under Appeal are vitiated. On this short ground, the impugned judgments are set aside. 7) In the result, the Appeals are allowed and the matters are remanded to the learned Appellate Court for passing appropriate orders afresh, by duly taking into consideration the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:10.04.2026 Ssv 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL NOs:12 & 14 OF 2026 Date:10.04.2026 Ssv