Chappidi Vadapalli vs Dangeti Padma Vijaya Naga Kumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 3075 AP

                   HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT AMARAVATI


MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.1238 of 2011
                                        PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.      Date                                   ORDER                                   OFFICE
No.                                                                                      NOTE
      17.08.2021   MVR,J                                                                Tr. to I-O
                                                                                          folder
                                                                                         before
                                          S.A.No.1238 of 2021                          corrections
                                                                                         if any.
                                                                                        Pl.verify.
                         Heard learned counsel for the parties.
                           Upon consideration of the decrees and judgments of
                   the trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court, since the
                   following     substantial   question     of   law    arises   for
                   determination in the second appeal, ADMIT.
                          1. Whether the appellate Court is justified in
                               reversing the finding of fact arrived by the
                               trial Court basing on cogent evidence?
                          2. Whether the recitals in Ex.A1 document is hit
                               by Section 92 of the Evidence Act, when the
                               evidence of PW.1 is contra to the recitals in
                               Ex.A1?
                          3. Whether the recitals as to boundaries in the
                               document not inter parties could be admitted
                               in evidence under Sections 11, 13(1), 32(3) and
                               32(7) of the Evidence Act?
                          4. Whether the failure on the part of the plaintiff
                               to examine the vendor and non-production of
                               link documents an adverse inference has to be
                               drawn?
                      Issue notice to the respondents to submit arguments in

respect of above substantial questions of law(Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v. Tamilarasi(dead) by Lrs. (AIR 2019 SC 3027) followed).

List the matter on 14.09.2021.

______ MVR,J Pab