Neppalli Venkateswara Rao vs Neppalli Sambasiva Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 2098 AP

                           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH


MAIN CASE NO:       S.A.No.199 of 2022
                              PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N      Date                           ORDER                              OFFICE
 o.                                                                          NOTE




       28.04.2022 BSB, J

                      Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
                      The appellant filed suit for partition but the
                  same was dismissed.        The plaintiff preferred
                  appeal in A.S.No.184 of 2015 and the same was
                  dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, this
                  appeal is preferred on the following substantial
                  questions of law are raised.
                        1. Whether EX.B1 to B5 and B7 are proved in
                           the absence of any evidence to that effect?
                        2. Whether the finding of the trial court that
                           the plaintiff failed to challenge Ex.B7 dated
                           29-03-1993 within 3 years can be sustained
                           when Sambrajyamma herself was in
                           possession and enjoyment of the property
                           covered by Ex.B7 and the plaintiff is not
                           having any knowledge about the alleged
                           alienation under Ex.B7?
                        3. Whether the recitals of Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and
                           Ex.B7 can be considered when the
                           evidence on record is contrary particularly
                           with regard to the crucial recital of delivery
                           of possession?
                        4. Whether the courts below are justified in
                           dismissing the suit ignoring the entire oral
                           and documentary evidence?
                        5. Whether the first appellate court can ignore
                           the mandatory provision of Order XLI Rule
                           31, while framing appropriate points for
                           consideration in the appeal without giving
                           any findings on each issue found by the
                           trial court and can it ignore the other issues
                           answered by the trial court and is it not
                           violation of mandatory requirements of
                           Order XX Rule 5 of CPC and also breach of
                           mandatory provision of order XLI Rule 31
                           of CPC is not such judgment perverse?
       6. Whether the first appellate Court can
         decide the appeal without deciding the
         petition filed by the appellant under Order
         XLI Rule 27 for receiving additional
         documents?


     In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit
the appeal.
     ADMIT.
     Notice to respondents.

Post on 28.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal service of notice to the respondents through RPAD and file proof thereof.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J PNV