Hanuman Singh vs Vangala Haritha Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 4011 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                 MAIN CASE: S.A.No. 291 of 2023

                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No.                                                                   Office
          DATE                           ORDER                           Note
7.       04.09.2023 BKM, J

                            Heard the counsel for the appellant. The
                   learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to
                   take out notices to the respondents and proof of

service shall be filed within a period of three (3) weeks from today.

List on 03.10.2023.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff in the suit and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant in the suit. The appellant is subsequently added as the 2nd defendant in the suit. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of money of Rs. 7,76,000/- by granting a preliminary decree against the defendants with costs of Rs. 7,76,000/-, the subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- giving six months time for redumption. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd defendant/the appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 57 of 2018 on the file of Principal District

Judge, Kurnool and the same was allowed in part vide its judgment dated 17.03.2023 by setting aside the personal decree passed against the defendant No. 2/appellant before it by confirming the preliminary decree granted by the trial court against the defendants in pursuance of the Ex.A1-the registered mortgage deed. Though to an extent of granting of personal decree by the trail court was set aside by the lower appellate court, the granting of preliminary decree against the defendants was confirmed by the lower appellate court and as such to the extent of that portion, the appellant before lower appellate court/2nd defendant in the trial court is aggrieved and hence he filed this second appeal raising the substantial question of law.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have not taken into consideration the grant of decree of suit for specific performance instituted by this appellant and the Ex.A3 dated 02.12.1992 was not taken into consideration. Had these two factors been taken into consideration, the appellant/2nd defendant in the suit would have been exempted from the liability of recovery of money at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit by dismissing the relief against him.

From the above said pleadings and the judgments of the courts below, the following

substantial question of law would arise for consideration by this court:

Whether the judgments of the courts below in appreciating the pleadings and the evidence on record are perverse with respect to the liability of the appellant is concerned in the whole transaction of the suit?

There shall be an order of stay of execution of the judgments and decrees of the courts below as on today in so far as the appellant is concerned pending further orders.

List on 03.10.2023.

_________ BKM, J UPS