Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kunchala Narasamma vs Katragadda Seetharamanjaneyulu on 5 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: S.A.Nos.95 and 172 of 2020
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
12. 05.10.2023 Dr. KMR,J
Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri K.S.Murty, learned counsel
for the respondents are present.
2. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior
counsel appeared for the respondents and
submitted that the respondents have filed an
application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking for
framing the substantial question of law in the
Second Appeal while deciding its admissibility
before hearing the matter finally to enable the
parties to defend the case. To that effect,
learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.6070 of 2023, dated
21.09.2023, wherein it was mentioned in
para-27, as under:
"27. The questions of law raised in the instant
appeal are answered as under:
27.1 A Court sitting in second appellate
jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of
law at the time of admission, save and except
in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing
of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the
parties on such questions i.e., after giving them
adequate time to meet and address them. It is
only after such hearing subsequent to the
framing that a second appeal shall come to be
decided."
3. Learned Senior counsel has also
relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No........... of
2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.8736 of
2016), dated 22.09.2022, wherein the Apex
Court held that:
"An entirely new point raised for the first time
before the High Court is not a question
involved in the case unless it goes to the root
of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
whether a question of law is a substantial one
and involved in the case or not, the
paramount overall consideration being the
need for striking a judicious balance between
the indispensable obligation to do justice at all
stages and impelling necessity of avoiding
prolongation in the life of any lis.
4. Learned Senior Counsel while relying
upon the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court argued that without framing substantial
question of law at the time of admission, the
second appeal cannot be decided.
5. On verifying the proceeding sheet, it
is observed that the present Second Appeals
pertain to the year 2020. So far, no substantial
question of law is framed in these Appeals.
Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from
time to time on the request of learned counsel
for the respondents upto 23.12.2022.
Thereafter, when the matter was listed on
21.08.2023, then also respondents' counsel
sought time for arguing he matters.
6. On hearing the submissions of
learned Senior counsel and also perusing the
citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by the
respondents referred to above, this Court
opines that without giving opportunity, without
framing substantial questions of law at the
time of admission, is not correct. On such
framing of substantial questions of law the
Court shall proceed to hear the parties after
giving them adequate time to meet and
address them.
7. Normally, in so many cases,
particularly in the Second Appeals, they were
filed long back and the counsels are not
properly appearing and simply taking
adjournments. Further, without framing
substantial questions of law, without admitting
the appeals, mostly the delay is causing for the
above reasons.
8. In view of the above, this Court
intends to frame substantial questions of law in
these cases and also intends to afford one
opportunity to the parties are concerned.
9. The following substantial questions
of law arisen for consideration:
1) Whether the non framing the points
were consideration by the Appellate
Court running contra to the
Mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC
has not substantially affected the
case of the appellate more so when
the appellate Court simply followed
the suit in not resorting to the
tenable grounds raised by the
Appellant in her Memorandum of
Appeal? Does adoption of such
course meet the mandate of
independent appreciation by the
First Appellate Court as it being the
final factual Court?
2) Whether the course of appreciation
of evidence adopted by the Courts
below sustained in Law in the teeth
of evidence on record on behalf of
the Appellant evidencing that the
Vendorof the Appellant has been in
possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule land in terms of under
Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession
Act under which provision of Law,
the Appellant acquired full rights in
the property of her husband by
inheritance and she is entitled to
alienate the same as she got pre-
existing right under Section 14 (1)
of Hindu Succession Act after the
death of her husband?
3) Whether the provisions under
Section 14 (1) of the Hindu
Succession Act would not apply in
respect of the suit property in
favour of the Vendor of the
Appellant which she acquired by in-
heritance after the death of her
husband and the Vendor of the
Appellant would not be the full
owner of those properties having
alienable rights?
4) If the husband of a Hindu Female
died intestate, whether his widow
would not get any pre-existing right
in the property owned by her
husband as contemplated under
Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession
Act and thereby any document
executed by the Widow during her
life time is not valid in the absence
of any relinquishment of her rights
in the property?
5) Whether Ex. A-19 executed by the
Vendor of the Appellant which is
styled as an agreement, can be
treated as release/ relinquishment
Deed, since no rights in the
property are relinquished and it is
neither properly stamped nor paid
any stamp duty and registration fee
as contemplated under the Indian
Stamp and Registration Act?
6) When there is no consideration for
releasing or relinquishing the
existing rights in the property, Can
it be said that it is a release/
relinquishing her rights, would that
document (Exh A-19) is not hit by
Section 25 of Contract Act?
ADMIT.
Notice.
Post the matters on 12.10.2023 for
hearing of the respondents.
________
Dr. KMR,J
BMS
