Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 13-7-2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for Offences against Women, confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge. The Court held that a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code can only be entertained if a substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Brief Facts:
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests. Instead, they executed a registered sale deed in favor of the 3rd defendant on 29.07.2010. The defendants denied executing the agreement of sale dated 03.05.2010 and contended that the plaintiffs had fabricated the document in collusion with certain financiers. The trial court found that the agreement of sale was genuine and that the plaintiffs had proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The first appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings and dismissed the appeal filed by defendants 3 to 5. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court were contrary to law and should be set aside. She argued that the courts below had failed to consider material evidence and that the agreement of sale was not genuine. The appellants further submitted that the plaintiffs had not established their readiness and willingness to perform the contract and that the relief of specific performance should not have been granted.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the second appeal is devoid of merit, as no substantial question of law was involved. It was submitted that the findings of both courts were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and did not warrant interference. The respondents contended that the appellants had failed to produce any evidence to discredit the agreement of sale and that the appeal was a mere attempt to delay the execution of the decree.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be entertained if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. It emphasized that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court should not be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on a misinterpretation of law.
The Court observed that the grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale is not automatic, and it is a discretionary relief, the same is required to be exercised judiciously and reasonably. The appellants had failed to establish any substantial question of law warranting interference. Mere reappreciation of facts or evidence does not constitute a substantial question of law.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing the second appeal, held that none of the questions raised were substantial questions.
Case Title: Kandula Surya Kumari & Ors. vs. Guthula Kannababu (Died) & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Case No.: SECOND APPEAL NO: 594/2023
Advocate for the Appellants: Adv. Smt. G. Manasa
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Sri P. Rajesh Babu
