The High Court · 2025

7. Sri Kasturi Krishna, Sio. K. Shankaraiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ - - Agri"Jltri", R/ o P'uppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Revenue Mandal, R R District ...Respondent / Defendant No 1 B. Smt. Savitramma, Wo. A. Mallesh, aged About 56 years, Occ Household, R/o Nacharam Village, Rajendra Nagar R.R. District ...ResPondent / Defendant No 2 9. Smt. Neelavatr, Wo. G. Yadagiri, aged about 54 years, Occ' Household, R/ o Narsingi Village. Rajendranagar Revenue Mandal, R.R District ...ResPondent / Defendant No 3 10. Smt. Bhagyamma, Wo. Ch. Chander, Aged about 51 .V9a1s, Occ Household R/o. Hyddrshah Kote, Rajendra Nagar Revenue ltilandal, Ranga Reddy . District ...ResPondent / Defendant No 4 I

11. Smt Renuka Wo. Durgaiah,Iged About 49 years. Occ. Household, R/ o Ramachand rapu ram, Medak Distrrct ...Respondent / Defendant No 5 lA NO: 'f OF 2024 Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 & 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 stay of all pioceedings including execution of the decree dated.21-06-2018 in o.s. No. 723 of 2003 on the fite of the lstAdditional Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, including execution of the decree in E.P. No. 610 of 2019 in any manner pending disposal of the Second appeal, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1. P. Vengal Rao - died Per LRs 2. Smt. P. Achamma, Wo. Late p. Vengal Rao, Aged 71 years, Occ. Household 3. P. Srinivas, S/ o. Late P. Vengal Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ. Business 4. P. Sridhar, S/o. Late P. Vengal Rao Aged 49 years, Occ. Business 5. P. Subba Rao, S/o. Late P. Vengal Rao Aged 47 years, Occ. Business 6. P. Naga Lakshmi, Wo. P. Srinivas, Aged 4g years, Occ. Housewife All the residents of H.No.16-2-836/3, Madhavnagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad ,.Vacate Stay Petitioner / Respondent No 1 to 7 in SA AND 1 I 3 Arl/s.. Raghuram Constructions (lndia) !Lp, Now known as M/s. Raghuram Pradeep Constructions (lndia) LLp and Formerly known as Mls |CONilomes and also,. M/s Raghuram Constructions (lnciia) LLp Represented by its partner Sri. M. Satchidananda Rao, S/o Sri. lr/. Thirupathi Rdo, aged about 6a Xears, .Occ. Business, .Registered Office at 7-1-79 & BO, Unit N;50i. Anand Capital. Ameerpet, Hyderabad M Satchidananda f qo. S/g Sri [vl_ Thirupathi Rao, aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, H.No. 7-1-79 & 80, Unit No. 501, An"and Capital,'nmeerpLi, Hyderabad Shri Rudra Keerthan Narne. S/o. Arjun Narne, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Service R/o.F-l01, Fortune Enclave. Road No. 12,-Baniara Hills. Hvderabad _ 909.091, Rep by his G.P.A. Appettant No. I vrz. M/s. Rdghuram CoistruCi,ons (lndia) LLP M/sRishab Reraltors and Deveropers, a rqgistered partnership Firm, prot No. 'SEc.rnaeraUad. 22, Ratna Co-operative Housing Society T;daJ;J, Rep;i lG GPA. Appelant No. 1 viz Mls HaghuiJin co"rtirtt.i, (tndra) LLp Sri Chandrasekhar Nori, S/o. Late Lakshmikantha Sastry, Aged 6g years, Occ. Business Sri Srikanth Nori, S/o. sri chandrasekhar Nori, Aged 42 years, occ. Business l,lori, Wo. Sri Chandrasekhar Nori, Aged 66 years, Occ Smt. Janaki Household Smt- Prakeerthi Reddy Ankireddy, Wo. Srikanth Nori, age<j 39 years, Occ. Business Respondent_No 5 to B .are .a!] residents of H.No. B j58_A, AFOCHS. Sainakputi. se,:underabad and Re.p gv 1t.1,. e p.A. Horo"i"Apptrrr"t"rV"."i viz M/s. Raghuram Constructions (l'ndi;) LLp !vl/9 S,L Daga _& Sons HUF. Represented by Shantitat Daga (Kartha) S/ o. Late Jethamar Daga occ Busindss, R/o a-1-aiol virra oi5naE,vriI'r.ri. I Totichowki Hyderaiad nep o/treir-bph. npp"irlni ru" r ,ii rrl/r. ;iilil;;;; Constructions (lndia) LLp ' [9enq Dag-a Khiraya, D/ o. Shantila.l._Daga Aged 48 years. Occ. Household, -S, i;td;;;[i: R/o- 8-1-330. Ma!nificent Home Viila"Gra"nae, Viira No Hyderabad, Rerp bv her GpA. Appeffani N-o. i viz. M/s. R"gli;;;; Constructions (l ridia)'LLp M/s Nishant Encraves pvt... Ltd, A company rncorporated under the lndian p_o1p91ies Act and having its registered'O#rce aiiriifranrHor;; H N;.';_)l 351/N/1, Road No 2 Bdnjara Frirrs riyJeiinJ _U, n"p ov tne,i'6.pA. Appellant No 1 viz. M/s. Raghuram Conslruitions lf nOia; fle ...Respondents / Appellants Sri Kasturi Krishna S/o. K. Shankaraiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Aqriculture R/ o puooataouda Vi[age, naiE"Jra"ig]i n6venuJfr,l]noaf , Ranga Reddy D striit' Smt. Savitrammil. Wo A Mallesh, aged About 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o N a cha ra m V i lta g e, Rajend," N; g;; Ra;;J'neit"vb istrt"t Smt. Neelavati, \A//o. G. Yadagiri, aged about 54 years, Occ. Household, R/ o Narsingi Viilage, Rajendranag-ar Re-venue rvtira"i, naiga nuaov biitiiii '- " Smt..Bhagyamma, Wo. Ch. Chander, {ged about Sl years, Occ. Household n" n t(ote. Rajend ra t ta g a i n"even ue trri#Oli. nr. g r-RilJ;" " "'- Br&r,!,rdur. Smt. Renuka, Wio. Duroaiah,|ged About 4g years, Occ. Household, R/ o. Ramachandrapu-am lvl-edak'DiStiiit '--*' v 'vqrr' vv'i A 6 7 8 o 10 11 12 tJ.

14. 1E 16 ...Respondents / Respondent No 7 to 11 in SA Petition under sr-'ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 27 r03t2024 passed in rA No. 1 of 2024 in sA No. 135 of 2024. Counsel for the Appellants Counsel Sri P Sri Raghuram, Senior Rep Sri S Malla Rao Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 6 : Sri Chandrasen Reddy, Senior Counsel Sri PVLBhanuPrakash The Court delivered the following Judgment : I HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TUDGMENT: SECOND APPEAL No.135 of 2024 This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14'03.2024 passed in A.s.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, confirming the judgment and decree dated21.06.2018 passed in o.S.No.723 of 2003 on the file of I Adciirional Senior Civil ]udge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. 2. Brief facts teading to filing of the present second appeal are that Plaintiffs filed the suit in o.s.No ,22 of 2003 on rhe f,e of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for specific performaace to execute the registered sale deed(s) either in the name of the plaintiffs or in the names nominated by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit scheduie property i.e., land admeasuring Acs.6.36 guntas in Sy.No.447 situated at puppalguda village, Rajendra Nagar Revenue Mandal, R. R. Disrrict.

3. It is averred that on 02.06.1996, ptaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants for purchase of the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.6,55,000 / _ i.e., Rs.95,000/- per acre, and the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 2,OS,0OO/ _ towards advance sale consideration in different dates. Though the I 1 I 2 LNl, S..4.No.tls of 2021 plaintiffs were ready to perform their part of contract, the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deeds by receiving baiance sale consideration and dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other. ,

4. It is further averred that on 20.02.2003, when the plaintiffs approached the defendants and requested to execute the registered sale deeds, they demanded Rs.a0,000/- more per acre in addition to the agreed amount. Then, the plaintiffs got issued a lega1 notice on

22.02.2003 and the same was returned un-served. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no other option except to fiie the suit. Hence, the suit.

5. The defendants in the suit filed written statement denying the averments made in the plain! inter alia, contending that he never entered into any agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property; that the suit schedule property is their anceskal property and the a suit for partition is pending before the Courf that plaintiffs NCVEI paid any advance towards sale consideration and finally prayed to dismiss the suit

6. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, neither examined any wihress nor marked any document. _ \ L 3 S.A.No.l35 of20U

7. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit aide order dated,2L.06.2018 and directed the defendants to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of two months by receiving balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs, which is to be paid within one month from the date of decree. 8' Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 21.06.201.g, the appellants/rhird parties fired A.S.No.' 6 of 2023 on the fire of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, contending that appellants have purchased the property under various registered. saie creeds, which were marked as Exs.B2 to B32, under which the appellants had acquired rights over the property and are devetoping the property and are in possession of the property.

9. It is averred that originally the suit schedule property belongs to Sattaiah and Shankaraiah and they sold the same to one G.N.Srinivas and G.Narayana under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.6531 of 1990 and, 6532 of 1990, which were marked as Exs.BI and 82. Subsequentll,, the appellants entered into an agreement of sale on 27.08.1999 under Ex.B4 and thereafter a power of attornev was executed by them in favour of K.Narsimhulu under Ex.BS and I 1 LNA. sA.N4.135 oJ 2021 Narsimhulu, and in turn, instead of selling the property as per the intention of his principals, sold the property to third parties and there was some litigation and the issue was finally ended in a settlement and the property was transferrbd in favour of predecessors-in-title of the appellants

10. It is further averred that plaintiffs by placing reliance on an agreement of sale that was entered subsequent to the agreement of sale between Sattaiah and Shankaraiah and their family members and the plaintiffs have no right in the property as thefu agreements are subsequent to the agreement of sale under which appellants acquired rights. It is further averred that appellants also filed O.S.No.301 of 2021 before the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar against the respondent Nos.1 to 11 seeking declaration that impugned judgment and decree dated21.06.2018 in O.S.No.723 of 2003 passed by the trial Court as null and void and also seeking the other relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the same property. 11,. Before the first appellate Court, on behalf of the appellants, XW.1 was examinecl and Exs.B1 to 876 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A11 to A17 and Ex.C1 were marked. ) ) 5 LNA, J S-A.No-135 of 2024

12. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record, oide jud,gment and decree dated L4.03.2024 dismissed the first Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

13. Heard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the appellants on record and Sri Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 6,lplaintiffs. 1,4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants had contended that the appellants herein are third parties to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.723 of 2003 and the first appellate Court admitted the A.S.No.16 of 2023 filed by the third parties granting leave. He further contended that the Court grants leave to third parties onll, when it is found that such party has iocus standi and first appellate Court had granted leave to the appellants/ third parties by recognizing their locus and therefore, appellants have stepped into the shoes of the party aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.723 of 2002.

15. Learned senior counsel further contended that fkst Appellate Court has failgd to follow the procedure laid down in Order XLI Rule I i 6 L\-,1, 31 of CPC and thus, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is contrary to Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC since it failed to consider the pleadings, assess the evidence of the parties, frame relevant issues, which arise for'adjudication; that first Appellate Court without taking pains to analyze the grounds of appeal and also re-appreciate the evidence being final Court on facts, had dismissed the appeai, depriving the rights of the appellants/third parties by not adverting to the pleadings, evidence and documents on record. 1,6. Learned senior counsel had further contended that the appellants filed the documents before the first Appellate Cour! which are markEd as Exs.B1 to 876 and the same were neither referred nor considered by the first Appellate Court. Further, he contended that the I first Appellate Court erred in not framing the issues for consideration while adjudicating the first appeal in clear contravention of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC.

17. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for appellants/ third parties relied on the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court: I l I 1 S.A.N1.It5 of2024 i) Malluru Mallappa (dead) thorugh Legal Representatives v. Kuruvathappa and othersr ii) A.V.G.P.Chettiar & Sons and others v. T.palanisamy Gorrnder2

18. In Malluru Mallappa (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court held as under: "13. It is a settled position of law that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing on krw as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for reconsideration. Thereforr,., the first appellate court is required to address itself to a1l the issues and iiecide the case by giving reasors. The court of first appeal must record its findings only after clealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issuerr and contentions [see : Sanlosh Hazaiv. purushottam Tiwari fSnntosh Hazai v. Purushottam Tizoan, e001) 3 SCC , Matihukar v. Sangram lMadhukar v. Sangram, (200-l) 4 SCC 7561 , B.M. Nnrayana Gowda v. Shanthtmma IB.M. Narayana Gouda v. Shanthammt, (2071) 15 X:C 476 : (20.t4) 2 SCC (Civ) 6191 , H.K.N. Swami v. trshad Basith fH.K.N. Sutami v. Irshad Basith, (2005) 10 SCC 243] and Sri Raja kksbni Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar [Sri llaia Lnkshrni Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, \-l9gO) 4 SCC 25ell " -1791

19. In A.V.G.P. Chettiar and Sons (supra), the Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: 1 1zozo1 + scc :t: ' (2002) s scc 337 I I I i E "22 ...First, an objection to the maintainability of the appeal, like other points of demurrer, may be relevant at the time of the admission of the appeal. Once the appeal is admitted without reserving the issue of maintainability and the mafter is heard on merits, such a preliminary objection does not survive. ..,."

20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the resPondents/ piaintiffs vehemently contended that the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly decreed the suit and the same was confirmed by the first Appellate Court by giving cogent reasons. He further contended that mere omission to frame point(s) for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first Appellate Court. However,, when it was pointed out that no indePendent issues were framed by the first Appeilant Court and that there is no re- appreciation and independent analysis of evidence and also grounds urged by the appellant were not even referred to by the first Appellant Court, he fairly conceded that matter can be remanded to the first Appellant Court for fresh adjudication. Consideration:

21. The principal contention raised by the appellants herein is that the first Appellate Court did not consider the material available on record ln ( proper perspective and had not framed points for determinLdon and further, the grounds raised and submissions Tid:* 9 LNA, J ,S.LNo-135 of 2021 on behalf of the appellants have not been referred to in the judgment. The judgments referred to by the appellants emphasizes the dufy cast upon the first Appellate Court to formulate the points for determination and to undertake full, fair and independent consideration of evidence and record reasons for its decision. The first Appellate Court being finat Court on facts, shall undertake independent analysis of evidence, preadings and record reasons for its conclusion.

22. In Santosh Hazari vs. purushottam Tiwari3, the Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: "15._... The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless reskicted by law, the whole case i, tt.,"ruir_, open for rehearing both on questions of fact and iaw. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, refleft its conscious ,rpplication of mind and,record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the"contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties foidecision o{ the appellate court. The task of an appellate court alfirming the frndiags'of the trial court is an easier one. The appellate ugru"i.rg i"ith tl_," view of tht, trial court need not restate the effeciof thJ evidence or reiterak the reasons given by the trial courf expression of generat agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice lSee Cirilamnaini 'sC rrzii l. w" Deoi v. Eilendra Narain Cttourthary ltln naz would, horver,.er, like to sound u .roi" of .urtiorr. Erpruiriorl of general agleement with the findings recorded i., tf,j lranrnur,t under appe,al should not be a devic"e or camouflage ,jffia Uy t*ir*.Ig the appellate court for shirking -the i jYdg*":, oI reversal the appellate court must remain < onscious or two prrn'--ipres. Firstry, the findings of fact based on conflicting duty cast i ."Wf.if "orit "" " 3 lzoot) z syAts l0 SA.N2.135 ol 202a . evidence arived at by the trial court must weigh with the appellate coult, more io when the findings are based on oral eiridence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the l"G;"r. This certa"inly does not mean that when an appeal lies 'o. iu.t", the appellate court is not comPetent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge' As a matter of 1aw if the uppruisuf of the evidence pY the triat Court suffers from a ' miteriat ireguiarity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on it entitled to conjectures ind surmises, the appellate :o-"11 ir,tof"." with the finding of fact' (See Mndhusudnn Das v ' ioroyaniUoi (1983) l SCC aS : AIR 1983 SC 1141 ) The rule is - ar,d it is nothing more than a rule of practice - that when there is con{tict of oril evidence of the palties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of wib:resses' then unless there is some ,p"iiul f"utot" about the evidence of a furti"rfu. witness which has escaped the trial Judge's notice, or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opirrion u, to where the credibility lie' the-appellate court should ,-,'ot ir,t"rf"." with the Iinding of ihe triat ludge on a question of iact. (See Sariu Perslutl Ramieo Sahu v ' lwaleshtuari Pratap Nmarn i,ngh IrOSO SCC 71,4: AIR 1951 SC 1201 ) Secondiy' while r"rr"e.sing a finding of fact the appeilate court must come into .ior" qrrl*urc with* the reasoning aisigned by the.trial coult and then aisign its own reasons foi arriving at a different finding' This wouid satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first upp"ttut" .oo.t ftad discharged the duty expected oI it" ' ' "" 2S.Theaboveviewhasbeenfollqwedbyathree-}udgeBench decision of this Court in Madhukar v. sangram [(2001) 4 scc 756), wherein, it was reiterated that sitting as a Court of first appeal' it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings'

24. In Shasidhar and others vs' Aswini Uma Mathad and another4, the Hon ble Apex Court at ParagraPh-11 had referred to o 1zorsl rr ss 269 t201s (2) ALD 182 (scl 1I LNA, J S.A.Nd-135 of 2024 judgment passed in Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ousephs, wherein it was held that duty is casts upon the first Apperate Court to decide the first appeal in accordance with section 96 of CpC and further referred to the observation made in the said judgment, which is reproduced as under: "11,.

2. An appellate court is the final court of fad o inaily and tlerefore a litigant is entitted to a full and fair and indepetldent consideratiotr of tle eoidence at the appellate stage. Anything less tlwn this is unjust to him and I hazte no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate lurlge has fallen far short of what is expected of hitr as an a:ppeLlate court.,,

24.7. At paragraph-16, the Hon,ble Apex Court had referred to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rn B.V.Nagesh a. H.V.Sreeniaasa Murthyo, wherein it was observed as under: "J. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High (ourr has b"e., co.,sidered b'y-*i"iJI.i'a- ' "rr,"r. decisions. Orcter 41 CpC deals ,"itt, upf.ui, fr._iro*il o***. Among the various rutes, nute sr mr''iiil.r,"irrl"l"iffi"",.r ,rr" appellate court shall state: (a) the points Ior determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and s lzoor; : scc t7g/ o (2010) 13 sccd3o (2010)4 SCC (Civ) 809 t2 s.A.No. tJ5 of 20 (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled." an.\ Ultimately, at paragraph 21, the Hon le Apex Court held as under: "21. Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers con{erred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the Iirst appeal on facts "nd _Iaw was adversely affected which, in turry deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.,,

25. In Laliteshwar Prasad v. S.p. Srivastava (D) through L.Rs7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "11. As per Order XLI RuIe 31 CpC, the judgment of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order XLI Rule 31 CpC reads as under: Order XLI Rule 31: Contents, date and signature of judgment. _ The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in wriiing ancl shall state _ a. the points for determination; b. the decision thereon; c. the reasons for the decision; and d. where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appeilant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is propounded be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein. 7 lzottl z scc 415 \ 13 S-A-No- 135 oflu1 It is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the points for determinati,rn, the decision thereon and the reasons Ior decision. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons bast:d on evidence adduced by both the parties."

26. In H.Siddiqui (Dead) by L.Rs. v. A.Ramalingam8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "18.The sairl provisions provide guidelines for the appellate court as to how the :ourt has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein shouid be taken into consideration. 'l-hus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance with the said provisions if lhe appellate court's judg;ment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspects of the matter and the findings oi the appellate court are well founded and quite convincing. lt is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the e,vidence of the parties and consider the relevant poinLs which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mcrc general expression of concurrence with the trial court ju<Igment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independenrly to that of the trial court. Thus, the enlire er.idence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done aJter lormulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requiremenis of the said statutory provisiors."

27. In )alendra Padhiary v. Pragati Chhotraye, the .Aper Court held as under: 81zot11 + lzo te; t e sc92 6,KC 40 773 { I I I , l 14 S.A.No.l35 of 20 "Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions ,,rg"a by the parties, the Iegal principlcs applicable to tle issues involied rnd rh" r"uro* ir_, support of the findings recorded based on appreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in the case.,,

28. Perusal of the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024 passed by the first Appellate Court would show that the first Appellant Court has {ramed two issues i.e.,1) \4lhether the appeal is maintainable ? and 2) whether the decree is liable to be set aside for fraud ?. Except this, no independent points were framed by the first Appellate Court.

29. However, first Appellate Court failed to frame proper points for determination, which is mandatory under Order XLI Rule 31 of CpC. Further, the first Appellate Court being the final Court on facts, did not undertake the exercise of detailed analysis of the evidence as weli as findings o{ the trial Cour! contrary to Order XLI Rule 31 of CpC.

30. It is evident from the impugned judgment and decree that the first Appellate Court failed to discuss all the grounds raised by the appellants and record its findings. Further, the documents, which are marked as Exs.B1 to 876 on behalf of the appellants herein are neither referred p nor considered by the first Appellate Court. j -l t t I5 LNA. J S.A.No.13s oJ 2421 31,. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above, in considered opinion of this Court the first Appellate Coult failed to exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC.in propel' perspective and had failed to formulate points for consideration and to undertake full, fair and independent anaiysis of evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated L4.03.2024 passed by the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and accordinglV, set aside.

32. In the result, the Second Appeal is disposed oi and the matter is remanded bactrr to the first Appellate Court for fresh adjudication with a direction to frame points for consideration, and pass a reasoned order in accordance rvith law, by duiy taking into consideration the evidence and material p,laced on record. Observations made by this Court are only for the '.;urpose of disposal of present appeal and the first appellate Court sha11 not be influenced by the observations if any, made by this C ourt, while adjudicating the appeal. Since the suit is of the year 2003, the first Appeilate Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the Iirst appeal as expeditiously as possibl{r I I l6 SA.i\o.lJ5 of The interim stay granted by this Court on 27.03.2024 sha1l be in operation tilI the disposal of the First Appeal on remand. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous appiications, if any, sha1l stand closed //TRUE COPY' \ sd/- K. J NIVASA RAO REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (with records' if any) To, 1 \

2.ThelAdditionalseniorCivilJudge,RangaReddyDistrictatLBNagar 3. One CC to Sri S Malla Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P V L Bhanu Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies VA/gh k ) .5 {. HIGH COURI' DATED:1310212025 JUDGMENT SA.No.135 of 2024 oh 1ltE S14 :) '..) .j 0 3 ,'il\l 2m (i -, a * a. l I I i DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL @