APHC010024032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY SECOND APPEAL NO: 72/2026 Between: 1. VEMULAPALLI VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO, (DIED) 2. VEMULAPALLI VENKATA CHOWDARY,, S/O. VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS , PRIVATE SERVICE, METAL CASTINGS, 193/3, 192/8, B.2, J.R.D. TATA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AUTO NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA. 3. VEMULAPALLI @ MUTHINENI LEKHA SRI,, W/O. MUTHINENI VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS , HOUSE WIFE, C/O. MUTHINENI AMARESWARA RAO, D.NO. 9-386-A, SAARADA RESIDENCY, SANTHI NAGAR, MAGANTI COLLEGE ROAD, GUDIVADA POST, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. VEMULAPALLI SATYAVANI,, W/O. LATE VENKATA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, R/O NEAR KONERU PUBLIC SCHOOL, KUCHIPUDI VILLAGE,MOVVA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. PADMANAABHA VEMULAPALLI LEELAVATHI, W/O PADMANABHA SUBRAHMANYAAYYAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS , HOUSE WIFE, D.NO. 1-4-69/3/1, SRI LALITHA MILAYAM, STREET NO.8, LANE NO.9, HUBSIGUDA, HYDERABAD-7. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section 100 of CPC against orders pleased to allow the second appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 18/2025 dated 31-10-2025 on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Avanigadda which was passed by confirming the judgement and decree dated 2 CMR,J S.A.No.72 of 2026 28-04-2023 in O.S.No.88 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 dispense with the filing of Xerox Copy of the judgment dated 28-04-2023 in O.S.No. 88 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in filing the above S.A., and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 suspend the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 18/2025 dated 31-10- 2025 on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Avanigadda and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J S.A.No.72 of 2026 JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Counsel for the respondent, who appeared on caveat. 2. This is the second appeal preferred by the appellants against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court assailing the impugned judgment. 3. The appellants are the defendants in the suit bearing O.S.No.88/2015 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda. The suit was filed against the defendants by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit schedule property based on a registered gift deed that have been executed by the defendants which is Ex.A1. The defendants have taken a plea in the written statement that the gift deed was executed by defendant No.1 in a drunken state and that subsequently, they have cancelled the said gift deed unilaterally. It is a settled law that when once the execution of the gift deed is admitted and if it is sought to be cancelled on any valid legal ground whether on the ground that it was obtained by playing a fraud when the executant donor is in intoxicated state of mind or any other ground, the executant has to approach the competent civil court and prove the alleged fraud played or prove the fact that it was obtained from him while he was in drunken state and then get the registered gift deed cancelled by a court of law. But without resorting to legal process by way of filing a suit for cancellation of the gift deed, as it is pleaded that it was unilaterally cancelled, it is not valid under law. 4. Therefore, both the trial court and the first appellate court recorded a finding against the defendants regarding the said plea taken by them. As the defendant No.1 has admittedly executed the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and since the unilateral cancellation is not found to be valid under law, both the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded the concurrent finding 4 CMR,J S.A.No.72 of 2026 relating to declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit and it was upheld by the first appellate court. 5. Therefore, no valid legal ground is emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court in this second appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal warranting interference of this Court with the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the first appellate court. There is no apparent error of law emanating from the record to interfere with the impugned judgment of both the trial court and the first appellate court. So, there is no valid legal ground to admit the appeal even for hearing. 6. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 13.02.2026 Vns