The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent : The Court delivered the following: HON'BLB SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No. 25 of 2025 JUDGMENT: 'fhe Second Appeal is filed against the.judgment and decree dated

26.08.2024 in A.S.No.29 of 2023 on rhe file of the ill Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated

30.06.2023 in O.S.No.37 ol 2012 on rhe file of rhe Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, was confi rmed. 2 The appellants are plaintif'fs and the respondent is defendant in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinalter are relemed to as thcv were arrayed before the trial Court. !

3. Brief facts that lead to filing olrhe presenl. Second Appcal are that the aforementioned suit was originally lrlcd by plaintill No. I Lo declare him as owner, possessor and title hotder of the suit schedule properly and also lor permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his heirs, etc., from interf-ering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In the plaint, it is averred that the suit schedule prope(y was purchased by plaintiff No. I jointty wirh one Vishwanadula Rama Chary and Kamasani Satyanarayana Reddy tiom one Alugubelli Biksha Reddy and another through a regisl.ered sale deed bearing document .r 2 LNA, J 5.A.,\o.25 oJ 2025 No.4 l4li 1984; that later, Vishwanadula Rama Chary and Kamasani Satyanarayana Iteddy have relinquished their rights in l'avoul of plaintiff through registered release deed bearing document No.ll56/1992, dated 2l .3.1992 and lltus. plaintiff No. I became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property; that on three sides of the suit schedulc propeny i.e., on North, South and West he erected fencing with stone pillars; that the plaintiff has let out an extent of Ac.0.34 guntas to one Pasupuleti Saidaiah through a rcgistered lease deed dated 1 l.l I .201 I for the purpose of erecting a petroleum outlet; while so, the defendant under the guise of created sale deed said to be executed by one Yellamma stafted interfering u,ith his posscssion and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that though the plaintili protested and denied the claim of the defendant, thc delcndant had illcgalll, dug a trench in the suit land separating an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas or1 southern side; that the plaintiff made an application to the 'I'ahsildar, Nalgonda to inspect the land physically and submit report and the same is pending; that in such circumstances, the aforcsaid suit was filed.

4. During the per.rdency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died, as such, his Iegal heirs rvere brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 i i I I I I I LNA, J S.A,No.25 of 2025

5. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments in the ptaint and inler a/ra contended that hc is owner and possessor ol Ac.0.23 guntas of land in Sy.No.653 of Cherlapalli Village having purchased the same from one Sunkaraboina Yellamma though registered sale deed bearing document No. 16790 of 2011, dated 31.12.20 ll; rhat originaly, one Sunkaraboina Lingaiah, husband ol Sunkaraboina Yellamma vendor of the defendant was owner of land to an extent of Ac.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.653; that the said Lingaiah sold the said land ro one V.Chandraiah and V.Sree Ramulu, who in tum sold an extent ol Ac.O1.25 % guntas to one Kakkireni Sreenivas and others and the remaining extent of Ac.0.23 guntas to S.Yellamma; that in the said document, thc boundarics were clearly mentioned that on the northem side there are lands of Brahma Chary and others and on the southern side there are lands of Mohd. Osman and Ramesh Kumar; that even in the document executed by S.Yellamma in lavour of the defendant, the same boundaries wcrc clearly mentioned; and thus, ever since the date of purchase,, the defendant is in possession of the land. 5,1. It was further averred that plaintiff No. I who claimed that he purchased the suit schedule propefty from one Atugubelli Biksha Reddy and another, has intentionalty withheld the namc of the alleged vendor; that I 4 LNA,.I S.A.No.25 o! 2025 in the registered sale deed vidc document No.414ll1984. the names of the seller and purchaser trentioned therein is one and the satne i'e., Kamsani Satyarlarayana Rcddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, which thron's doubt about the genuineness of the alleged document. tt was further averred that in both the documents, i.e.. rcgistered sale deed bearing document No.4l4ll1984, under which ptaintiilNo.l jointly pulchased the suit schedule propefty, and document No. I 1 56 of I 992, under which plaintiff No. 1 leased out the land to Pasupr.rlcti Saidaiah. the boundary on the south i5 5fteurn as ag|icultural tand of one S.t.ingaiah, howo,er, in the schedule of the suit property, it is mentioned that on the southem side there is land of G.Ramesh Kumar and others, which is quite contrary to the doculnents filed by the deceased plaintiff No.l ancl thus, tlie plaintilf No. I is intending to grab tl.re suit schcdule propetty by making lalse claim and allegations.

5.2. It u,'as further avcrrcd that plaintilf No.l pleaded and admitted in the plaint that he leascd out an extcnt oi Ac.0.30 guntas in Sy.No.653 to one Paspuleti Saidaiair. as such the ctaim of plaintiff No.l that he is in possession o1- cntire extent of Ac.2.00 guntas of suit land is lalse and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Belore the trial Cour1, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.Al to 44 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, .-\ 5 LNA, J S.A.No.25 of 2025 neither oral evidence was adduced nor documents wcrc marked. 'l'he Advocate-Cornmissioner was examined as C.W- I .

7. 'Ihe trial Court, after considering the entire material available on record, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.29 ol 2023 on the file of the Ill Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The first appellare Courl on re-appreciation ol the evidence and perusal ol the matcrial available on record vide the irnpugned judgrnent dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Cour1. Hence, the present second appeal.

8. Heard Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel lor the plaintills. Perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellan ts/plaintills vehernently argued that the trial Court dismissed the suit without proper appreciation ol the evidence and the first Appellate Couft also committed an error in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Couft. Learned counsel further contended that the first Appellate Court being final fact- finding Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and adjudicated the issues, whereas the first Appetlate Court-in its judgment has verbatim reproduced the paragraphs of the ( 6 -/\ I,NA, J S.A.No.25 o! 2025 judgment of the trial CoLrrl, i.e., the findings, reasons and couclusions thcrein, without independently appreciating the evidence and applying its mind and therelore, the impugned .iudgment of the first Appetlate Court is abuse ol its appellate power and hence, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

10. As lcgards the jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court to reverse or afflrrm the tindings of the trial court. its power/dut1' to re-appreciate the entire evidence being a flnal-fact finding Court, it is trite to reler to the lotlowing judgmcnts of the tJon'ble Suprcme Coutt:- i) Santosh Hazari vs. Purusholtam Tiwarit ; ii) Shasirtltur and otlters vs. Aswini [Jma Mathad antl another2; iii) Uttar Pradesh Stale Road Transport Corporation us' Mamta and oth ers'l Considcration: I l. ln Santosh Hazari (supra), the llon'ble Apex Court held as under "Thc ctppeLlate court lrus jurisdiction to reverse t''r ffirn the findings of the n"iat court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parl ie.s und ttnless rcstricted b\' 1qt', the whole cose is therein ' (2001) 3 scc 179 ' (201s) 1i scc 269 [201s (2) ALD 182 (sc] ' (zoro) + scc 172 IAIR 2016 sc 948 7 LNA, J S.A- No.25 of 2025 open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must. therefore, reflect its conscious upplication of mind and record Jindings supported by reasons, on oll lhe issues arising along with the contentions pul forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The task of an appellate court ffirming the findings of the trial (ourt is on easier one. The appellate courl agreeing vtilh the view of the trial court need nol restate the efiect of the evi.dence or reilerate the reasons given by the trial court,. expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, woulcl ordinarily sufilce (See Girijanandini Devi v. Btjenrlra Narain Chouclhary IAIR 1967 SC I 124] ) l4/e would. however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the frndings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a tlevice or camouflage adopted bv the appellate court for shirking the dut1, gct51 on il. lyhile writing o judgment of reversal the appellate court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly, tlrc ./indings of fact based on con/licting evidence arrived ot b.v the trial court must weigh with the appellate court, more so wlten the findings are based on oral evidence recortled by the sutte Presiding Judge who authors lhe judgment. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate court is not compelent lo reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial .ludge. As o mauer o/ taw if the appraisal of the evidence by lhe trial Court sulfers from a material irregularillt or is based on inadmiss ible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate court is entitlecl to intyrtre v,ith the fnding ef fact. (See Madhusudan Das v. 8 ,-) LNA, J S.A.No.25 of 2025 Norolunibai [(19831 1 SCC -l.t . AIR 1983 SC ll4J ) The t e is - ond it rs nothing more lhtln a rule of praclice that vhen there i.s cottflict d oral evidence of lhe partie .\ ott (tnt m(llttr in issue and tlrc decision hinges upon the credibilig qf witnesses, thcn unless lhere is .sotnc speciul feature ahout the cvidence of a par/icular v,ilness v,hich has escuped the trial Judge's notice or thet e is a sulfcient balance of improbability to disploce hi.s oltinion as to where the credibilit.v lie, the appeLlate .ou!'l should not inter.fere with the finding of the trial .ludge on a que.ttion o.f facl (See Scn'iu Pershad Ramdco Sahu v. Jwaleshv,ari Pratap Narain Singh U950 SCC 711 AIR 1951 SC' l20J ) Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact thc appellctte court must come inlo close quarle's wilh lhe reasoning assigned by the tial court and then assign its own reasons.fc.'r at rivittg at a dilJirert.finding. This woulcl satisfi, the court hearing o.further appeal that the first oppelloLe court hdd discharged thc flu.ht stllscted of L.. ... "

12. In Shasidhar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-1i had relerred to.iudgment passecl in Kurian Chrcko v. Varkelt Ousepha, wherein it was held that duty is casts upon the first Appellate Coutl to decide the first appeal in accordance with Section 96 of CPC and lufther referred to the observation made in the said judgrnent, which is reproduced as under: "An appellate court is the final courl of facl ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair anrl independent o 1zoot1 3 scc tzo t. i i j t i ! E I ! I I E I a i l I I I I I I I l I , 9 LNA, J S.A.No.25 of 2025 consideration of the evidence al the appellate stage. Anything less than lhis is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far shorl of what is expected of him as an appellate court. "

12.1. At paragraph-16, the Hon'ble Apex Court had referred to judgment in B,V.Nagesh v, H,V.Sreenivasa Murthys, wherein it was observed as under: " How lhe regular first appeal is to be disposed oJ'by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this ('.ourt in various decisions. Order 1l CPC deals v,ith appeals .from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 3l mandales that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points .for determin.ation; (b) the decis i.on thereon; (c1 the reasons for tlrc decishn. and (d) where lh.e decree appealed from is reversed or voried, the relief to which the appellant is en.titled. "

12.2. Ultimately, at paraglaph 2l of the judgment, the Hon'le Apex Courl held as under: "Being the.first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty ofthe High Court to decide the Jirst appeal keeping in view lhe scope and powers con.ferred on it unde.r Section 96 read with Order 1l Rule 3l of the Code mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, cawing prejudice to the appellants Y,hose valuable right to prosecule lhe first appeal on.facts and law was ' (2010) 13 SCC 530: (2010)4 SCC (Crv) 809 t0 ;i LNA, J S.A. No.25 o12025 adversell' tffected which, in turn, de;trived them of o hearittg in the appeal in accordance witlt Law. "

13. The principle contention raised by the appellant herein is that the first Appellate Court did not consider the material orl record in proper perspective and had rlot lramed points lor determination and fufther, the grounds raisecl and subrnissions made on behall- of the appellant have not becn refened to.

14. -l'he above judgments of the Hon'ble Suprcme Court emphasizes the duty cast upoll thc first Appellate Court to lormulate the points fbr determination, undeftake lutt, fair and independent consideration ol evidence and record reasons for its decision. The firs1 Appellate Courl being final Court on facts, shall undertake indcperldcnt arralysis of evidence, pleadings and record reasons for its conclusions. l5 Perusal ol the.iudgnent and decrec dated 06.08.2024 passed by the tirst Appcllate Courl rvould shou'that though the issues fratned by trial Couft were mentioned, the first appcllate Court did not frame any new issue/point for consideration while adjudicating the first appeal

16. To the utter surprise of this Cour1, a bare perusal of the impugned judgment of the first Appcllate Courl goes to show that paragraph Nos.l4 to i l I ! I :t I l ! E, I I I I I I II LNA, J S-A.No.25 oF 2025 3l therein are in f-act verbatim reproduction of paragraph Nos.37 to 53 of the judgment passed by the trial Court in the suit. The first Appellate Court being final t-act-finding Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence independently while adjudicating the /rs betWeen the parties

17. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is open for rehearing both on questions ol fact and law. The judgrnent ol the first appellate Couft must, therefore, reflect its conscious application ol mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put lofth, however, all these aspects are evidently missing in the impugned judgment of the first Appellate Court. I8. The approach of the first Appellate Court in adjudicating the appeal is quite contrary and in lact, is in utter unconfonnity with the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 3l CPC, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the flrst appeal on facts and law was adversely aflected l

19. In the present case, the first Appellate Court being the final fact- finding Court did not undertake the exercise of detailed analysis ol the evidence on record as well as findings of the trial Court, is clear contravention of Order XLI Rute 3l of CPC I t .-.}m\-:ja LAII,J \ 2

5.4.,\\'.25 of 2025

20. Fol thc fbregoing reasons and also in the light o1'the law laid down by the I-Ion'blc Apex Court in the aloresaid judgmcnts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first Appellate Court failcd to cxercise its power undcr Ordcr Xt-l Rule 31 ol CPC in proper perspecti\e and had lailed to undertake full, lair and independent analysis ol evidence on record and rendered the irnpugned judgment without application ol mind. Thercforc, the irnpugnedjudgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 2l . In the lesult, the Second Appeal ls disposed c.f and the matter is rernanded back to the first Appellate Court lor fresh adjudication with a direction to fl'ame the points lbr consideration, u,hich arc mandatory under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and pass a reasonecl order, alter duly appreciating and independently analysing thc cntire evidence, both or.al and documentary, placed on lecold, ir-r accordance rvith lar.r. There shall be no order as to costs. 22 Pendir.rg miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed I I To, SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER l The lll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. (With records) The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

3. One CC to Sri. ttladiraju Prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 ) JUDGMENT SA.No.25 ol 2025 ( c$. 18 sEP 2U5 t) l-.:.,. ",-.utt- o a / {l /3 S.A. IS DISPOSED OF