APHC010251512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 469 OF 2025 Between: 1. KAYALA CHANDRAMMA @ CHANDRAVATHI, W/O.GANGULU, AGED ABOUT HARIJAN STREET, PEDDA BONDILIPURAM, 5TH WARD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. KARRI SANTHIPRIYA, W/O.SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2-5-603/1, KARNAMMA SANTHINILAYA, SRI RAM SAI NAGAR, CHINNA BONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF 2. SMT PATHIVADA VENKATALAKSHMI, W/O.RAMANAMURTHY, AGED MAJOR ABOUT YEARS. NEAR NARAYANA VIDYA VIHAR SCHOOL, SRI RAM SAI NAGAR, CHINA BONDILIPURAM, 5TH WARD, SRIKAKULAM. 3. PATHIVADA RAMANAMURTHY, S/O.SANYASAPPADU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR YEARS. NEAR NARAYANA VIDYA VIHAR SCHOOL, SRI RAM SAI NAGAR, CHINA BONDILIPURAM, 5TH WARD, SRIKAKULAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEEROPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED SRIKAKULAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEEROPERATIONS, ANDHRA 2 PRADESH ELECTRICITY POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED SRIKAKULAM 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEEROPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section ___________ against ordersThe above named Appellant begs to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree Honble II Addl.Civil Judge ( Junior division). Special Srikakulam, made in O.S.No.70/2013, dt.10/5/2024, by the Honble Family Court-cum-III Addl.District Judge, at Srikakulam, made in Appeal Suit No.39/2024 dt.21/2/2025, for the following grounds among other 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 pleased to suspend the operation of judgment and decree of Hon'ble II Addl.Civil Judge (Junior division). Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam, made in O.S.No.70/2013, dt. 10/05/2024, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Family Court- cum-III Addl.District Judge, at Srikakulam, made in Appeai Suit No.39/2024 dt.21/2/2025, pending disposal of the above second appeal, and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Even on second call, none appears for the Appellant. 2. Heard Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Durga Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The Appellant is the Defendant No.1. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.70 of 2013 before Ld. II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, seeking relief of Declaration of Title, Recovery of Possession and Mandatory Injunction. Vide Decree and Judgment dated 10.05.2024, Ld. II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam had partly decreed the suit by allowing the prayers of Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession, but had not granted the relief of Mandatory Injunction for removal of electricity connection. 4. The Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.70 of 2013 was challenged by the Defendant in Appeal Suit No.39 of 2024 before the Family Court –cum- III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Vide Decree and Judgment dated 21.02.2025, Ld. Judge was pleased to dismiss the Appeal Suit filed by the Defendant vide Order dated 21.02.2025. Challenging this Decree and Judgment in the Appeal Suit, this Second Appeal is preferred by the Appellant. 5. The substantial questions of law raised by the Appellant are usefully extracted hereunder: “SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW That the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal are: (i) Whether the plaintiff discharged her burden of proof, in the light of the contention of the defendant No.1, that the survey number, boundaries are different and not same. 4 (ii) That in lieu of the above dispute, onus on the plaintiff to show that the plaint schedule property and the schedule "EFGH" is same. (iii) Whether the plaintiff discharged her burden of proof rested on her shoulders? (iv) Whether the judgment and decree of trial court, is perverse, as it observed in its judgment, that the defendant failed to prove her case.” 6. Admittedly, the findings are concurrent. This Court is of the opinion that the questions of law raised by the Appellant are essentially factual in nature. This Court, in Second Appeal, would not interfere with the findings of the fact inasmuch as the first Appellant Court is the final Court with regard to the finding of the facts. This Court has sifted through the Judgments rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and is of the view that the present Second Appeal does not deserve any interference inasmuch as the same is devoid of any merit. 7. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.02.2026 Mnr 5 139 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 469 OF 2025 Dt: 09.02.2026 Mnr