Tetali Subba Reddy, vs Mallidi Gani Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 1051 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Tetali Subba Reddy, vs Mallidi Gani Reddy on 8 February, 2024

Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy

Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: Second Appeal No.71 of 2024 PROCEEDING SHEET

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE

1) 08.02.2024 SRK, J IA No.1 of 2024 Dispensed with for the present.

SA No.71 of 2024 Heard.

ADMIT the Second Appeal, in view of the substantial questions of law raised at Ground No.14 (I) to (VII) of the grounds of Second Appeal viz., "I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of the courts below relying upon the weaknesses of the plaintiff's evidence without attributing appropriate weightage to their evidence is legally sustainable?

II. Whether the decree and judgments of Courts below are perverse, incorrect and ignored the settled law on the subject as it has

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE not considered the entire oral and documentary evidence introduced in the case?

III. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were correct in brushing aside the evidence of the plaintiff which are relevant and have bearing upon the result of suit as well as appeal?

IV. Whether the Courts below misread, misinterpreted and ignored the evidence on record?

V. Whether the Courts below by recasting the original issues thereby shifting the entire burden of proof on the plaintiff, is contrary to Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act which provides that burden of proof in a suit on proceeding lies on that person, who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side?

SL.   DATE                          ORDER                          OFFICE
NO.                                                                 NOTE

VI. Whether appellate Court is correct in notsending the document to expert opinion or to compare disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, more particularly, in the light of the fact that execution of agreement of sale dated 19.02.2011 is itself in dispute?

VII. Whether the Courts below having framed the original issues and recasting as many as 7 of them into one issue is in accordance with Order 14 Rule 3 of CPC?

In the circumstances, there shall be an interim injunction as prayed for, for a period of six (6) weeks.

List the matter after four (4) weeks.

______ SRK, J Nsr

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE