Smt. Lakshmi vs S Ramakrishnan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1013 AP

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                           MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.416 of 2018

                                       PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     Date                                            ORDER                                       OFFICE
No.                                                                                                  NOTE

05.   24.02.2022   SRS,J
                         This second appeal filed against the judgment and
                   decree, dated 21.12.2017 passed in A.S.No. 62 of 2013 on
                   the file of learned XI Additional District Judge, Chittoor
                   District,    reversing       the     judgment        and    decree,     dated
                   03.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.1248 of 2001 on the file of
                   learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor District.

                         The original suit was filed for declaration of title and
                   recovery of possession of the property to an extent of
                   Ac.0-07 1/3 cents shown in the plaint sketch. The trial
                   Court decree the suit vide judgment, dated 03.06.2013 and
                   against     the     said    judgment,       the   defendant        preferred
                   A.S.No.62 of 2013. The learned first appellate Court
                   allowed the said appeal by setting aside the judgment and
                   decree of the learned trial Court. Hence, the present
                   second appeal.

                         Heard Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for
                   the appellants.

                         The following substantial questions of law arise for
                   consideration.

                         1. Whether the appellate Court's silence, with regard
                               to the observations and findings in respect of
                               fraud, discussed by trial Court in detail, on
                               appreciation of evidence of DW1, DW2, PW3 and
                               PW5, etc. along with material alterations in Ex.B1
                               document, and             reversing the judgment and
                               decree     of    tiral    court    are    vitiated     by    non-
                               consideration of material evidence.

                         2. Whether the first appellate Court's failure to
                               compare the valuation shown in Ex.B1 do not
                               tally    with      the     contention          of    respondent

No.1/defendant No.1 contention that entire property of Ac.0-22 cents was sold, which ofcourse, was worked out by the trial Court and reversing the judgment of the trial court is valid?

3. Whether the first appellate Court went wrong in observing that cancellation of Ex.B1 sale deed is required when the intention of parties are gathered from evidence on record that the property covered by Ex.B1 is only Ac.0-17 ¾ cents along instead of Ac.0-22 as claimed?

4. Whether the first appellate Court failed to follow O.41 R.31 of C.P.C. in framing the substantial points for consideration and thereby mislead in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs/appellants regarding the issues like fraud in making corrections in Ex.B1 by materially altering the extent of property based on which defendant No.1/respondent No.1 claims no existence of suit property for appellants and the erroneous non- consideration of valuation of property sold under Ex.B1. etc.?

Admit.

Post this second appeal on 28.03.2022, for hearing.

I.A.No.1 of 2018

Post this interlocutory application along with second appeal.

______ SRS,J

ikn