Telangana High Court
M/S. Raaj Quality Xerox vs T. Chandrasheker on 17 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Second Appeal No.338 of 2025
Judgment:
Heard Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This is a Second appeal preferred aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.2025 in A.S.No.8
of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, confirming the
Judgment and decree dated 04.08.2023 in O.S.No.1733 of 2022
(Old O.S.No.263 of 2018) on the fie of the III Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent/plaintiff filed suit for eviction against the
appellants/defendants with respect to suit schedule property
consisting of shop bearing No.108, situated at Padmavathi
Plaza, Opp. Kukatpally Housing Board, Hyderabad with plinth
area admeasuring 400 Sft. together with common area bounded
by East: Corridor, West: Road, North: Shop No.109, South:
Shop No.107. The appellants herein were served with
summons and they made appearance before the Trial Court.
Thereafter, filed written statement but failed cross examine
witness PW1 and also did not adduce either documentary or
oral evidence. Thus, on the basis of the evidence adduced by
the respondent herein, the suit was decreed directing the
appellants herein to vacate the shop within one month from
the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the First Appeal
is preferred to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
4. Upon hearing both the counsel, the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the
Trial Court as there was admission of jural relationship of
landlord and tenant and execution of Lease Deed dated
20.06.2011. Exception is taken to the fact that the appellants
herein did not cross examine PW1 and did not enter the
witness box to support their version. The First Appellate Court
held that when there is no oral evidence to support the
pleadings, when there is evidence on the part of the respondent
herein in terms of oral and documentary evidence, when the
evidence clinchingly establishes that there is a landlord-tenant
relationship on the basis of Lease Deed dated 20.06.2011, the
respondent herein is entitled to the relief of granting eviction of
the appellants. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the present Second
Appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of
law:
1) Whether the decree passed by lower court without
affording sufficient opportunity to the defendant to
defend and adduce evidence is sustainable and violates
principles of natural justice?
2) Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the
suit solely on the basis of unchallenged evidence, without
independently verifying the veracity of the plaintiff's
claims?
3) Whether, in the absence of a framed issue regarding the
validity and service of notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, amounts to procedural
irregularity and render invalid decree and Judgement?
4) Whether the lower court and appellate court erred in
holding the appellants responsible for procedural lapses
that were entirely due to the negligence of the engaged
counsel?
5) Whether the dismissal of the first appeal without
appreciating facts and evidence is perverse and contrary
to law?
6) That the courts below failed to exercise judicial discretion
in a reasonable manner, thereby causing grave miscarriage
of justice to the appellant, who has a meritorious
defense?
7) That the appellate court failed to frame points for
determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC,
thereby rendering its judgment unsustainable in law?
8) The Appellants initially filed Copy Application No.1687
of 2025 on 24/03/2025, seeking certified copies of the
judgment and decree. However, the certified copy of the
judgment was served on 24/04/2025, the decree copy
was not ready at that time. Consequently, the Appellants
filed a fresh Copy Application No. 3159 of 2025 on
23/06/2025 for the certified copy of the decree, which
was issued only on 17/07/2025?
5. Among the above alleged substantial questions of law,
the learned counsel for the appellants solely relied upon non-
framing of an issue with respect to service of notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the
appellants, non-framing of an issue with respect to serving of
notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act amounts
to irregularity and therefore, the judgment and decree rendered
are invalid.
6. On this count, this Court is of the considered opinion
that service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of
Property Act and validity of service are issues of facts, which
cannot be considered in a Second Appeal. A Second Appeal
contemplates consideration of substantial questions of law and
not mere questions of law.
7. With regard to the issue of consideration of second
appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v.
v. Hombegowda 1 has held that the High Court can entertain a
regular second appeal purely on a "substantial" question of law
not even a question of law or a question of fact and that it is
only when substantial questions of law would arise in a case
that the High Court can entertain a regular second appeal. It is
further held that if no substantial question of law arose in the
case then the appeal could not have been entertained and ought
to have been dismissed at the stage of admission.
8. Since the appellants failed to adduce evidence, the
defense taken by them in the written statement becomes a
nullity and therefore, there is no locus to raise any question of
(2025) 5 SCC 442
law or substantial question of law. Thus, the Second Appeal
lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the
stage of admission. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this
Second Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 17.09.2025
gvl
