Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gorla Appanna Died vs Sarvasiddi Satyanarayana on 23 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: Second Appeal No.120 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE
3. 23.03.2022 BSB, J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This application is filed to
dispense with filing of certified copy of
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.330
of 2002 on the file of the Court of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
It is submitted that the certified
copy of the judgment and decree was
submitted to the 1st appellate Court and
the same is not presently available.
In view of the aforesaid
submission, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed
dispensing with filing of the certified
copy for the present.
S.A.No.120 of 2022
The 1st respondent herein filed
the suit, O.S.No.330 of 2002, on the file
of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, for
declaration of title and recovery of
possession of the plaint schedule
property. The suit was decreed and the
first appeal, A.S.No.208 of 2014,
preferred by the 1st defendant was
dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment & decree, the legal
representatives of deceased 1st
defendant, who are brought on record
before the 1st appellate Court, have
preferred this second appeal, raising
the following substantial questions of
law:
1) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
decree and judgment of the
Courts below are legally tenable
as the basic document Ex.A1
Settlement deed, dt.22.05.1957
has not been proved in
accordance with Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act?
2) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case a
decree for declaration of title in
immovable property can be
granted basing on the oral
evidence of PWs 1 and 3 as it is
the settled law that a declaratory
decree in immovable property
should not be granted basing on
admissions of parties without
there being any documentary
proof?
3) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case both
the Courts below are not at fault
in resting the burden on the
appellant as in the suit for
declaration of title always the
burden lies on the plaintiff along
wand the weaknesses of the
defendant's case cannot be a
ground for granting the decree?
4) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
pattadar pass book and title deed
relied on by the respondent
No.1/plaintiff are sufficient to
decide the title of the parties
since it is the established
principles of law that the Revenue
entries do not confer any title?
5) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
findings recorded by the Courts
below are not perverse as they
are based on surmises and
conjunctions and against the
material available on record,
though not sufficient?
6) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
decree and judgment of the first
appellate Court is sustainable in
law as the parameters for
deciding an appeal as required
under Section 96 of CPC have not
been followed?
7) Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case the
points for consideration framed
by the first appellate Court are
tenable in law as they are not in
accordance with order 41 Rule 31
of CPC?.
It is vehemently contended that
both the Courts failed to examine the
proof of exhibit A1 in the light of the
mandatory condition under Section 68
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and
that the said document clinches the
entire case of the plaintiff.
In view of the aforesaid
substantial questions of law raised by
the appellant, ADMIT.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the
appellants is permitted to take out
notice to the respondents by RPAD and
file proof of service in the Registry.
Post on 18.04.2022.
I.A.No.2 of 2022
This application is filed seeking
stay of operation of the judgment &
decree dated 30.06.2021 passed in
A.S.No.208 of 2014 on the file of XII
Additional District Judge, Pithapuram.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
In view of the fact that the 1st
appellate Court has not granted any
time within which possession shall be
delivered, there shall be interim stay of
operation of the judgment and decree
dated 30.06.2021 passed in A.S.No.208
of 2014 on the file of XII Additional
District Judge, Pithapuram, till
18.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the
petitioners is permitted to take out
notice to the respondents by RPAD and
file proof of service in the Registry.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
RAR
