1 APHC010159242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO: 241/2026 Between: 1. KESAMSETTY PEDA OBULAIAH @ OBULAIAH, S/O. LATE EKAMBARAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. JUVVALAPALEM VILLAGE, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PRESENTLY IN TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KESAMSETTY PREMA SAI, S/o. Obulaiah @ China Obulaiah, R/o. Juvvalapalem village, Naidupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Presently in Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.241 of 2026 JUDGMENT: Questioning the Judgment and decree passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, vide A.S.No.23 of 2022 dated 15.12.2025 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in O.S.No.162 of 2015 dated 13.06.2022, the unsuccessful defendant filed the present second appeal. 2. The suit in O.S. No.162 of 2015 was initially instituted by the father of the respondent herein, acting as guardian of the plaintiff, seeking declaration of right and title over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, recovery of vacant possession thereof, and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. 3. After full-fledged trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, by judgment dated 13.06.2022, decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred A.S. No.23 of 2022 before the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. By judgment dated 15.12.2025, the learned appellate 3 Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the first appellate Court is wholly unsustainable in law, as the learned appellate Judge failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that though several grounds were raised in the appeal, the appellate Court did not frame points for determination nor did it independently assess the oral and documentary evidence on record. The judgment, according to the learned counsel, is cryptic, non-speaking, and reflects total non-application of mind, thereby vitiating the entire adjudicatory process. He would further contend that the first appellate Court, being the final Court on facts, was duty-bound to re-appreciate the entire evidence and assign cogent reasons, which has not been done in the present case. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the appellate Court, contending that the trial Court had elaborately considered the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit, and the appellate Court, upon reappraisal of the material, found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that mere non-framing of points in explicit terms would not vitiate the judgment when the appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the trial Court. He would therefore contend that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. 4 6. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned VII Additional District Judge disposed of the appeal by a cryptic order, without proper consideration of the evidence on record and without adherence to the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari 1has held that the first appellate Court is the final Court of facts and must independently assess the evidence and record findings with reasons on all issues arising for consideration. 9. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith2, it was reiterated that compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is mandatory, and the appellate Court must frame points for determination and assign reasons for its conclusions. 10. Further, in Madhukar v. Sangram3, the Apex Court held that failure of the first appellate Court to deal with the evidence and issues in detail renders its judgment unsustainable. 11. In the case on hand, the impugned judgment does not disclose any formulation of points for determination, nor does it contain any discussion of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties. The judgment is 1 AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 965, 2 (2005) 10 SCC 243 3 AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2171, 5 bereft of reasons and does not indicate application of mind to the issues raised in the appeal. 12. Being the final Court on facts, the first appellate Court was duty- bound to re-appreciate the entire evidence and assign cogent reasons for its findings. The failure to do so constitutes a clear violation of the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed at the stage of admission. The judgment and decree dated 15.12.2025 passed in A.S. No.23 of 2022 by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the said appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, strictly in compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and upon proper consideration of the entire evidence on record. 15. The learned appellate Judge shall afford reasonable opportunity to both parties and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________ K SURESH REDDY, J Date: 01.05.2026 Asr 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.241 of 2026 Date: 01.05.2026 Asr