Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
G.Manohara Reddy vs K.Chandrasekhar Reddy on 20 June, 2025
<
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT ^
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1108 OF 2011
Between:
1. G.Manohara Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 42 years,
R/o. Kasapalli Village Peddavaduguru mandal, Ananthapur District
2. G.Tirupathamma, W/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 51 years, R/o.
Kasapalli Village Peddavaduguru mandal, Ananthapur District
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
AND
1. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Late K.Varada Reddy R/o. Chandana
Village Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District (Died per LRs)
2. K.Sarojamma, W/o. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 47 years,
R/o. Chandana Village Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
3. K. Sivasankara Reddy, S/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 28
years, R/o Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur
District-515455.
4. K. Govardhan Reddy, S/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 26
years, R/o Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur
District-515455.
/
5. K. Sunitha, D/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 24 years, R/o
Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur District-515455.
(Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased Respondent No.1, vide I.A No.1 of 2016 (SAMP No.
475/2016), as per the Court Order dated 17-09-2024)
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree
in AS No. 2/2010 of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty dated 09-08-2011
reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S No.225/2003 of the Junior Civil
Judge, Gooty dated 28-10-2009.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in
the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha,
Advocate for the Appellants and Sri Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad,
Advocate for Respondents.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the Second Appeal be and is hereby dismissed;
2. That each party be and hereby are directed to bear their own costs in
this Second Appeal.
SD/- K.TATARAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE N OFFICER
To,
1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division),Gooty, Ananthapur District
2. The Junior Civil Judge Gooty, Anantapur District.
3. THREE CD COPIES
TAC
>
HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/06/2025
DECREE
SA.No.1108 of 2011
" 2 S JUN 2025 I
^^A^nwtSectioa.^'
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMA
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1108 OF 2011
Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree
in AS No. 2/2010 of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty dated 09-08-2011
reversing the Judgment and Decree in O.S No.225/2003 of the Junior Civil
Judge, Gooty dated 28-10-2009.
Between:
1. G.Manohara Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 42 years,
R/o. Kasapalli Village Peddavaduguru mandal, Ananthapur District
2. G.Tirupathamma, W/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 51 years, R/o.
Kasapalli Village Peddavaduguru mandal, Ananthapur District
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
AND
1. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Late K.Varada Reddy R/o. Chandana
Village Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District (Died per LRs)
2. K.Sarojamma, W/o. K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 47 years,
R/o. Chandana Village Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
3 K. Sivasankara Reddy, S/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 28
years, R/o Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur
District-515455.
4. K. Govardhan Reddy, S/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 26
years, R/o Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur
District-515455.
5. K. Sunitha, D/o K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, aged about 24 years, R/o
Chandana Village and Post, Yadiki Mandal, Anantapur District-515455.
(Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased Respondent No.1, vide I.A No.1 of 2016 (SAMP No.
475/2016), as per the Court Order dated 17-09-2024)
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(SAMP. NO: 2510 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment and decree in AS.no. 2 of
2010 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur
District, pending disposal of the SA
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA
PRASAD
The Court made the following JUDGMENT :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.1108 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
–
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated
09.08.2011 in A.S.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty
(“First Appellate Court” for short) reversing the Judgment and decree, dated
28.10.2009 in O.S.No.225 of 2003, on the file of the Junior Civil, Gooty (“Trial
Court” for short).
2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondents herein are
St
plaintiffs in O.S.No.225 of 2003. During the pendency of the second appeal, 1
respondent died, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are added as legal representatives of
deceased 1®’ respondent.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.225 of 2003, with a prayer for
grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of
the plaint schedule property.
4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same,
the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of
2010 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge
allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the
learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached this Court
by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be
referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in
O.S.No.225 of 2003, is as follows;
VGKRJ
s.a.llOSof 2011
(i) The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property.
Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to Gaggalapalli Sunki Reddy
and his wife G. Laxmamma. At the time of marriage, they gifted the plaint
schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered gift deed, dated
18.01.1982. The plaintiffs have accepted the gift and ever since the plaintiffs
are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Some time,
they have also leased out the properties to others. Except the plaintiffs , none
others have any right, title
or possession to the plaint schedule property.
While so, the defendants who have
no manner of right or title to the plaint
schedule property are trying to obstruct the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule
property.
(ii) One Subba Lakshmamma filed suit in O.S.No.24 of 1991 on the file
of Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty against the defendants and father of 1®*
defendant with regard to plaint schedule property and other properties and
after full trial, the suit was dismissed. In this connection, the defendants are
claiming some amount from the plaintiffs on the ground that the father of the
1″* defendant have spent huge amount for the litigation. The plaintiffs are
nothing to do with the alleged huge amount spent by the father of the 1
defendant. They have no right to claim any amount from the plaintiffs, They
have somehow wanted to grab the plaint schedule property.
7. The 1®* defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the
same was adopted by the 2″*^ defendant denying the material averments made
in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows;
The 2″” plaintiff is the paternal aunt of 1″* defendant and 2″‘^ defendant is
his mother. The alleged donors of the plaintiffs are the paternal grandparents
of 1®’ defendant. One G. Sunki Reddy has two sons viz., G. Venkata Reddy
(father of 1®’ defendant) and G. Rami Reddy and all of them constituted
coparcenary. G. Lakshamamma, wife of Sunki Reddy had no exclusive right,
possession or enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. All the properties
3 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
owned and possessed by G. Sunki Reddy are his ancestral properties. G.
Sunki Reddy has only undivided 1/3″‘^ joint share in all the items of the property
and the remaining 2/3^^ joint share in all the items belong to his sons. Hence,
alleged execution of gift deed without joining the other coparceners makes the
gift deed a void one. The alleged gift deed is not to the knowledge of the
defendants and it was never acted upon. The defendants reliably learnt that
the alleged gift deed is a fabricated and forged document. The common
boundaries shown to the plaint schedule is only imaginary. The schedule of
the property as mentioned in the alleged gift deed, dated 18.01.1982 does not
tally with the existing ground realities. The agreement of sale in favour of
Subba Lakshmamma and filing of suit in O.S.No.24 of 1991 before the Senior
Civil Judge, Gooty by her were under different context and as the father of 1®*
defendant and plaintiffs were sailing together, some of the documents filed in
the said suit were prepared only for the purpose of defending the suit. The
alleged gift deed, dated 18.01.1982 was never intended to be acted upon nor
was acted upon at any point of time. The plaintiffs or their donors were never
in possession and enjoyment of Sy.Nos.586A or 587B on ground. Since the
alleged gift deed is a fabricated document, the original gift deed is not filed in
the Court. It is the plaintiffs who filed the unjust suit to take advantage of
pleadings in the written statement of father of 1®’ defendant and his evidence in
O.S.No.24 of 1991. The plaintiffs are never in possession of the property
covered under alleged registered gift deed, dated 18.01.1982 and hence the
suit filed under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act is not maintainable in
law.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the
following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the suit property originally belonged to Sunki Reddy
and his two sons and a division in suit property fell to the share
of Sunki Reddy?
4 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011 ■ m
‘S
(2) Whether the gift deed executed by G. Sunki Reddy and his wife,
X–.
dated 18.01.1982 in favour of plaintiffs with respect to the plaint %
schedule property is true, valid and binding on the defendants?
(3) Whether the decree and judgment of the Senior Civil Judge’s
Court in O.S.No.24 of 1991 with respect to the plaint schedule
property operates res judicata and same is binding on the
defendants?
(4) Whether the defendants are the owners of the plaint schedule
property and they are in possession of the same on the date of
the suit?
(5) To what relief?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs,
P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of
the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 were
marked.
10. The learned trial Judge after conclusion of trial, on hearing the
arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary
evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved thereby, the
unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2010 wherein, the
following points came up for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the relief as sought in the plaint?
(2) Whether the appellants are entitled for setting aside the judgment and
decree made in O.S.No.225 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’sCourt, Gooty, dated 28.10.2009?
11. The learned First Appellate Judge after hearing the arguments,
answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal
setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Felt
5 VGKRJ
s.a.llOSof 2011
aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.225 of 2003
filed the present second appeal before this Court.
12. On hearing both sides counsel at the time of admission of the appeal
on 23.09.2011, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
framed the following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the
suit for bare injunction when P.W.1 plaintiff) admitted that he
had no record to show his possession or enjoyment of the suit
land from the date of Ex.A.2, gift deed, till the year 2002?
(2) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in relying upon
Ex.A.4, pattadar pass book, obtained subsequent to the filing of
the suit, and when an appeal was pending against Ex.A.4?
13. Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the
appellants and heard Sri Sivalenka Ramahchandra Prasad, learned counsel
for the respondents.
14. The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court
cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court
which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were
erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled
position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissibleevidence or without evidence.
In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh\ the Apex Court held as
follows:
“The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to
whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court whichAIR 1993 sc 398
6 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of
non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.”
In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savltribai Sopan Gujar^ the
Apex Court held as follows:
“The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First
Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower
appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory
provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of
pronouncements made by the Apex Court or
was based upon
inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.
15. The undisputed facts are one Gaggalapalli Sunki Reddy had two
G. Venkata Reddy and G. Rami Reddy and one daughter by name
sons VIZ.,
Sarojamma. The 1″‘ plaintiff is husband of 2″^ plaintiff, the 1″‘ defendant is son
of late Venkata Reddy and the 2″‘* defendant is wife of Venkata Reddy. Both
parties in the suit are inter-related. The case of the plaintiffs is originally the
suit schedule property is belongs to Sunki Reddy and his wife by name
Laxmamma, they have gifted the suit schedule property under a registered gift
settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs and delivered the
possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs under the said gift
deed. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that
except registration extract of gift settlement deed, no document is filed by the
plaintiffs to show their possession and enjoyment in the suit schedule property.
The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would further contend that
the said alleged gift deed is a fabricated document. Per contra, the learned
counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the defendants have
not specifically denied the execution of registered gift settlement deed
executed by Sunki Reddy and his wife. As seen from the written statement of
the defendants, they have pleaded that the alleged execution of gift settlement
^AIR 1999 SC 471
7 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
deed without joining other coparceners i.e., sons of late Sunki Reddy viz.,
Venkata Reddy and Rami Reddy makes the gift deed a void one and the
alleged gift deed is not to the knowledge of the defendants, it was never acted
upon and it is a forged and fabricated document. The contentions in written
statement filed by the defendants goes to show that the execution of
registered gift settlement deed by Sunki Reddy and his wife is not at all
disputed by the defendants in the written statement, but they pleaded that it is
a fabricated and forged document.
St
16. The alleged donors of the plaintiffs are paternal grandparents of 1
defendant. Venkata Reddy and Rami Reddy are the sons of Sunki Reddy.
Venkata Reddy is no more. The 1®* defendant is son and 2′”‘^ defendant is wife
of late Venkata Reddy. The contention of the plaintiffs is that one Subba
Laxmamma filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Gooty, against the father of 1®’ defendant and husband of 2′”‘^ defendant,
Rami Reddy and the plaintiffs herein in respect of the same suit schedule
property and after full pledged trial, the said suit was dismissed. Perused
Ex.A.3 certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.24 of 1991. In the said suit
proceedings, the father of 1^’ defendant and husband of 2^^^ defendant by
name late Venkata Reddy admitted the execution of registered gift settlement
deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein by his father. In the written statement in
O.S.No.24 of 1991, late Venkata Reddy admitted about the execution of gift
deed in favour of the plaintiffs herein. The 1®^ defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1991
is wife of Sunki Reddy, she pleaded in the written statement itself that herself
and her husband Sunki Reddy executed a registered gift settlement deed in
favour of the plaintiffs herein at the time of marriage of 2^^^^ plaintiff with the 1
St
plaintiff and ever since the date of gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs, they are
in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
17. The contention of the appellants/defendants is that late Sunki Reddy
has no exclusive right in total suit schedule property , and Sunki Reddy is
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
having 1/3′”‘ share in the suit schedule property and his sons Venkata Reddy
and Rami Reddy are having 1/3^'” undivided share each in the suit schedule
property. As stated supra, the execution of registered gift settlement deed,
dated 18.01.1982 in favour of the plaintiffs by Sunki Reddy and his wife is
admitted by the son of late Sunki Reddy viz., Venkata Reddy in the earlier suit
proceedings in the year 1991. The said gift deed is unchallenged before any
Court of law or no steps have been taken by the sons of Sunki Reddy or
donors or appellants herein to cancel the earlier gift settlement deed said to
have been executed in the
year 1982. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that
Sunki Reddy and his two
sons Venkata Reddy and Rami Reddy orally
partitioned the properties and subsequently it was reduced into writing on
21.02.1972 under original of Ex.A.1 and Sunki Reddy got suit schedule
property in the present suit proceedings under a partition with his two sons. It
IS an admitted fact that Sunki Reddy had two sons late Venkata Reddy and
Rami Reddy. Venkata Reddy is no other than the father of 1″‘ defendant and
husband of 2′”‘* defendant and
in O.S.No.24 of 1991 late Venkata Reddy
admitted about the execution of registered gift settlement deed in favour of the
plaintiffs herein. It is also made it clear that at the time of marking of the copy
of the gift settlement deed attested by the Sub-Registrar concerned as Ex.A.2,
no objection is raised by the sons of Sunki Reddy i.e., defendants herein
during the course of trial. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge
came to a conclusion and gave a specific finding that the suit schedule
property was allotted to the share of Sunki Reddy in a family partition with the
sons of Sunki Reddy under oral partition with his sons. The said issue was
answered in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The said finding is
unchallenged by the defendants in the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs by
way of cross objections. Therefore, the said finding of partition of the suit
schedule property in between Sunki Reddy and his two sons and allotment of
suit schedule property herein to the share of Sunki Reddy in the family
partition reached its finality. Now the appellants herein cannot agitate in a
Second Appeal proceedings without challenging the said finding in the First
9 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
r-a
Appeal proceedings that Sunki Reddy has got only 1/3 share in the suit
schedule property.
18. It is the contention of the appellants/defendants (son and wife of late
Venkata Reddy) that late Venkata Reddy never executed a gift settlement
deed. But as stated supra, in earlier suit proceedings in O.S.No.24 of 1991,
the son of late Sunki Reddy himself admitted about the execution of registered
gift settlement deed a way back in the year 1982 in favour of the plaintiffs.
Moreover, one of the donors i.e., wife of Sunki Reddy admitted in earlier suit
proceedings about the execution of registered gift settlement deed in favour of
the plaintiffs and she also admitted about the delivery of possession under the
registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The contention of the
appellants herein is that said Venkata Reddy is no more and they got the
property by way of succession being a son and wife of late Venkata Reddy.
Since late Venkata Reddy himself admitted about the execution of registered
gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs, now the legal representatives of
late Venkata Reddy are not supposed to contend that the said gift settlement
deed is not a genuine document.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that by the date of
alleged gift settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982, the marriage of the 1®* plaintiff
with 2^^ plaintiff did not take place and that the gift deed is not ‘a valid
document. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
marriage of 1®* plaintiff with 2′”‘^ plaintiff is performed on 31.01.1982. The
learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs drew the attention of this Court
by the date of 18.01.1982, the marriage invitation cards are printed. It seems
during the talks for celebration of marriage the bridegroom party accepted for
marriage and the parents of bridegroom party gifted the suit schedule property
to the plaintiffs. The relationship in between the plaintiffs is not at all disputed
by the defendants. It was contended by the appellants that none of the
attestors are examined to prove the gift settlement deed. Section /68 the
10
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
Indian Evidence Act, 1908, defines if a document is required by law,to be
attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least
has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an
attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of
giving evidence. Provided that, it shall not be necessary to call an attesting
witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has
been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration
Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have
been executed is specifically denied.
In the case on hand, one of the donors i.e., wife of Sunki Reddy as 1
defendant admitted in earlier suit proceedings about the execution of
registered gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs and also delivery of
possession to the plaintiffs in the present suit. The son of late Sunki Reddy by
name Venkata Reddy admitted about the execution of registered gift
settlement deed in the earlier suit proceedings instituted in the year 1991. The
appellants have not specifically denied the execution of registered gift
settlement deed in the written statement itself but have taken a defence of
forgery and fabrication. In the absence of any forgery or fabrication and in the
absence of specific denial of execution of registered gift deed in the written
statement, the donee was under no obligation to examine one of the attesting
witnesses of a gift deed. Moreover, the execution of registered gift deed ISi’
admitted by one of the donors i.e., wife of Sunki Reddy in the suit proceedings
in O.S.No.24 of 1991 and delivery of possession in the suit schedule property
to the plaintiffs herein is also admitted by the wife of late Sunki Reddy.
Furthermore, the son of late Sunki Reddy and his wife by name Laxmamma
and late Venkata Reddy admitted about the execution of registered gift
settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs in earlier suit proceedings and the
plaintiffs herein filed a copy of registered gift settlement deed attested by the
Sub-Registrar concerned and the same was exhibited as Ex.A.2 in the present
suit. Since execution of registered gift settlement deed under Ex.A.2 is
s *
11 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
admitted by late Venkata Reddy and their mother in earlier suit proceedings,
no credence will be given to the alleged statement of legal representatives of
late Venkata Reddy that the alleged gift settlement deed is fabricated and
forged and original gift deed is not yet proved.
20. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
alleged gift settlement deed was never acted upon and the names of the
plaintiffs are not mutated in the revenue records. It is well settled that mutation
of entries is only for a revenue purpose, existence of registered gift settlement
deed is not in dispute, fraud and forgery as pleaded by the appellants in the
present case is not at all proved by the appellants. The execution of registered
gift settlement deed is admitted by one of the donors by name Lakshmamma
i.e., wife of late Sunk! Reddy and also admitted by the son of late Sunki Reddy
and Lakshmamma by name late Venkata Reddy in earlier suit proceedings
which are undisputed by both parties in the present suit. The contention of the
appellants is that by way of natural succession after death of Venkata Reddy,
they being legal representatives of late Venkata Reddy, are in possession of
the plaint schedule property. Since the execution of registered gift settlement
deed in favour of plaintiffs by late Sunki Reddy and his wife is admitted by the
wife of Sunki Reddy and son of Sunki Reddy by name late Venkata Reddy in
earlier suit proceedings, now the legal representatives i.e., late Venkata Reddy
are not supposed to take an adverse plea that the said registered gift
settlement deed is a fabricated one. The original of Ex.A.2 is a registered gift
settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982 is in force, the same is not yet cancelled
and the said registered gift settlement deed is executed by Sunki Reddy and
his wife in favour of the plaintiffs and the same is in force. The recitals in
Ex.A.2 goes to show that on 18.01.1982 under the said alleged registered gift
settlement deed, the possession was delivered to the plaintiffs and donees
accepted the said gift which was conferred by one of the donors in earlier suit
proceedings. There is no evidence on record on which date or in which month
or in which year, the plaintiffs were dispossessed from out of the plaint
12
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
schedule property. On the other hand
no rebuttal evidence is produced by the
defendants to show that they paid land revenue to the Government in respect
of the plaint schedule property and their names are mutated in revenue
records. The registered gift settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982 is not yet
cancelled till so far, therefore, the title is with the plaintiffs and the title follows
possession. Moreover, the defendants did not adduce any legal evidence to
show that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule
property.
21. It is another contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the suit is filed on 01.09.2003, the pattadar passbook filed by the plaintiffs is
said to have been issued on 10.10.2003 during the pendency of the suit and
that no sanctity can be given to the said pattadar passbook. The learned
counsel for the plaintiffs drew the attention of this Court that prior to filing of the
suit itself, the plaintiffs applied for pattadar passbook and usually revenue
department will not issue pattadar passbook after applying the same and after
completion of proper procedure and after conducting detailed enquiry, the
revenue authorities will issue pattadar passbook. He drew the attention of this
Court that the application was submitted to the revenue authorities for
issuance of pattadar passbook prior to issuance of pattadar passbook itself.
The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that an appeal is filed
before the Revenue Divisional Officer against issuance of pattadar passbook
by the Tahsildar. No evidence is produced by the appellants to show that an
appeal is filed against the said issuance of pattadar passbook by Tahsildar
before District Collector. It is not yet the case of the appellants that the
pattadar passbook issued in favour of the plaintiffs is canceled by the appellate
authority and pattadar passbook was issued in favour of appellants. The
present suit is an injunction simplicitor. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of registered
gift settlement deed, which is sufficient to prove the symbolic title of the
plaintiffs. As stated supra, execution of registered gift settlement deed in
favour of the plaintiffs is proved by way of producing registration extract of gift
13 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
settlement deed. It is not the case of the defendants that late Venkata Reddy
(father of 1®’ defendant and husband of 2′”^ defendant) acquired title in the
plaint schedule property. As noticed supra, execution of registered gift
settlement deed is admitted by late Venkata Reddy and one of the donors
Lakshamamma in earlier suit proceedings by that date another donor is not
alive, the wife of another donor i.e., Lakshmamma admitted the execution of
gift settlement deed and also delivery of possession to the plaintiffs under the
said registered gift settlement deed. Ex.A.2 shows the possession was
delivered under a registered gift settlement deed. No legal evidence is
produced by the appellants to show when the plaintiffs lost their possession in
the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, the recitals in the registered gift
settlement deed go to show that in the year 1982 itself the possession was
delivered to the plaintiffs and the registered gift settlement deed is accepted by
the donees i.e., plaintiffs which is supported by one of the donors,
Lakshmamma and also son of the donors in the registered gift settlement deed.
22. The learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance of Nagubai
Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others^, wherein the Apex Court
held as follows:
“An admission is not conclusive as to the truth of the matters stated
therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which
must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can beshown to be erroneous or untrue, SO long as the person to whom it was
made has not acted upon it to his detriment, when it might become
conclusive by way of estoppel.”
As seen from Ex.A.3, there was a clear admission by late Venkata
Reddy in earlier suit proceedings, now the legal representatives of late
Venkata Reddy i.e., the defendants are not supposed to take a different plea in
the present suit proceedings that the said registered gift settlement deed is a
^ AIR 1956 sc 593 ‘
14
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
fabricated document. Moreover, one of the donors i.e., wife of late Sunki
1
p
Reddy i.e., mother of late Venkata Reddy and Rami Reddy admitted about the
execution of original registered gift settlement deed and the donors also
admitted that the possession was delivered to the plaintiffs under original of
Ex.A.2 gift settlement deed. Furthermore, late Venkata Reddy himself admitted
about the execution of registered gift settlement deed by his parents, now the
legal representatives of late Venkata Reddy are not supposed to take a
different plea which was taken by late Venkata Reddy.
23. The learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance of J.
Yashoda vs. K. Shobhan Rani”, wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the
nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection
that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is
within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no
inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the
contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a
party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to
prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section
64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65,
however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence,
condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned.
The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before
secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the
contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the
original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within
one or other of the cases provided for in the Section.”
As noticed supra, the plaintiffs produced the certified copy of registered
gift settlement deed attested by the Sub-Registrar and the same is marked as
Ex.A.2. At the time of marking of document, the defendants have not raised”air 2007sc 1721
15 VGKRJs.a.llOSof 2011
any objection. Moreover, the existence of registered gift settlement deed is not
at all disputed by the defendants in the written statement itself and they have
taken a plea of alleged forgery and fabrication, but the same is not at all
proved by the appellants.
24. The learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance of S.
Sravan Kumar vs. The District Collector and others®, wherein the Division
Bench of this Court held as follows:
“All the documents that are now produced by the petitioner in the
Tribunal as well as in this Court by way of additional material papers i.e.,
S.S.C. Certificate, Family Member Certificate and Voter registration card,
are all obtained subsequent to the date of the death of the deceased
Subba Rao on 20.09.2011. Undoubtedly, they are obtained on the basis
of the said registered adoption deed, dated 25.09.2009 that was brought
into existence in the year 2009. As all these documents are subsequent
to the death of the deceased in the year 2011 and as by that time, a
claim for compassionate appointment was already made, undoubtedly all
these documents which are now produced by the petitioner, are hit by
the principle of post litem motam documents. As per the said principle of
law, the documents which came into existence after dispute commencedwill not have any evidentiary value”.
In the case on hand, the registration of gift settlement deed is happened
in the year 1982, earlier suit proceedings are instituted in the year 1991, the
present suit proceedings are instituted in the year 2003 much later than the
execution of registered gift settlement deed.
25. The learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance of
Gutta Venkatramana and others vs. Gutta Suiddappa Naidu and others®,
wherein this Court held as follows;
^ 2023: APHC:ii.568 = MANU/AP/0638/2023
® 2022:APHC:23840 = MANU/AP/1285/2022
16
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
It is pertinent to mention here that lower appellate Court considered
EXS.B5 to B12 and held that they are post-litem documents. These post
litem documents were pressed into service by defendant to show that he
IS in possession of the plaint schedule property. However, while
considering post-litem documents, they must be considered very
cautiously. In fact, trail court observed the discrepancies in Ex B5, B6 etc.
However, defendant did not explain those discrepancies. Apart from that
Ex B5 to B12, which are post litem motam cannot have any evidentiary
value. They were emanated after filing of the suit. They cannot decide
the possession of the parties on the date of filing of the suit”.
In the case on hand
no legal evidence is produced by the appellants/
defendants to show that they are having prima facie title and possession in the
plaint schedule property.
26. The learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance of
Balappa Tippanna vs. Asangappa Mallappa and others^ wherein the
Karnataka High Court held as follows;
If should be noted that under the Transfer of Property Act, the deed of
gift can only be valid if it is executed and duly attested by at least two
witnesses and is registered. Due execution, attestation and registration
are therefore the very foundations on which the validity of a deed of gift
depends. The plaintiff will have to prove the same before he can get a
decree thereon. All that the proviso states is that it will not be necessary,
(if the execution of the document is not specifically denied) to prove the
due execution and attestation thereof by calling an attesting witness.
The proviso cannot be construed as meaning that the document will in
such a case prove by itself. The next effect of S. 68, in my opinion, is that
if the execution of a document of this nature is specifically denied, then
an attesting witness to prove the same. But the document all the same
^AIR I960 Kant 234
.Vi
r 17 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
will have to be proved. This is also the view which was taken by their
Lordships of the Rangoon High Court in the case reported in R.M.A.R.M.
Chettyar Firm v. U. Htaw, ILR 11 Rang 26 : (AIR 1933 Rang 6). Chief
Justice Sir Arthur Page in his judgment held on this point that in His
Lordship’s opinion:
“the meaning and effect of S. 68 is that in the case of a mortgage within.S.
59 of the Transfer of Property Act it is incumbent upon the party relying
upon it to prove the due execution of the mortgage by adducing the
evidence of at least one attesting witness in that behalf as laid down in S.
68 of the Evidence Act, provided that unless its due execution, that is to>
say, its signature by the mortgagor in the presence of two attesting
witnesses is specifically denied, the execution of the mortgage deed in the
form required by law may be proved ‘aliunde’ by adducing other evidence
in that behalf.”
His Lordship further held as follows:
“the proviso to_S. 68 only removes the necessity of calling an attesting
witness to prove the execution of the documents therein referred to and
does not purport to relieve the party of the necessity of proving a
mortgage in the form prescribed under S. 59 of the Transfer of Property
Act.
It would be seen that the view which I am taking in this case was also the
view taken in the said Rangoon case.
In a case of Govindbhai Chhhotabhai Patel and others vs. Patel
Ramanbhai Mathurbhai®, the Apex Court held as follows:
In Kannan Nambiar v. Narayani Amma and others, 1984 SCC
OnLineKer.174 = 1984 KLT 855, the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court was considering a suit filed by daughter of a donee claiming share
in the property. The gift deed was admitted in evidence without any
objection. The Court held that specific denial of execution of gift is an
unambiguous and categorical statement that the donor did not execute
the document. The Court held as under:
“14. Ab initio we have to examine whether there is any specific denial of the
execution of the document, in the pleadings. Before considering whether,there2019(6) ALD 59 (SC)
18
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011IS specific denial we have to consider what is the exact requirement demanded
when the proviso enjoins a specific denial. ‘Specific’ means with exactness
precision
in a definite manner (See Webster’s ^ New International Dictionary)
It IS Clear, that something more is required to connote specific denial in
INaQ.
general denial. (See Dashrath Prasad v. Lallosing, AIR 1951
15^ We think that specific denial of execution of gift is an unambiguous and
categorical statement that the donor did not execute the document. It means
not only that the denial must be in express terms but that it should be
unqualified manifest and explicit. It should be certain and definite denial of
execution. What has to be specifically denied is the execution of the document
Sclent the execution
document by the alleged executant cannot be gathered, of the
for the denial
contemplated in the proviso.
XX XX XX
18^ The question which elicited the above answer gives a clear understanding
of the case of the defendants as they understood their case. Defendants have
no case that no document was executed by Anandan Nambiar. Their case is
that the document is not valid because it had been executed under
circumstances which would render the document invalid. There is no specific
denial of the execution of the document. The respondents can seek the aid of
the proviso to_S. 68 of the Evidence Act. No defect in not calling an attesting
witness to prove the document. We do not think that we can ignore Ext. A1 gift
deed on the ground that no attesting witness has been called for, for proving the
gift deed.” ^
In the aforesaid case law, the Apex Court further held as follows;
“The facts of the present case are akin to the facts which were before the
Kerala High Court in Kannan Nambiar‘s case (supra). The appellants
have not denied the execution of the document but alleged forgery and
fabrication. In the absence of any evidence of any forgery or fabrication
and in the absence of specific denial of the execution of the gift deed in
the manner held in Kannan Nambiats case (supra), the Donee was
under no obligation to examine one of the attesting witnesses of the gift
deed”.
In the case on hand, certified copy of registered gift settlement deed is
produced and marked as Ex.A.2 as a secondary evidence of a public
document, such certified copy is issued by the Registering Officer. The
certified copy issued by Sub-Registrar Office will amply proves about the
registration of gift deed which was duly proved through P.W.4, Sub-Registrar.
r
19 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
As per the evidence of P.W.4, he is working as Sub-Registrar, Gooty since
12.02.2007 and he brought the thumb impression register for the year 1982 as
summoned by the Court. As per serial No.69, dated 18.01.1982 the thumb
impression of Gajjala Sunki Reddy and Lakshmamma were obtained as
executants, Ex,A.2 was registered in their office vide document No.69/1982,
dated 18.01.1982.
27. Primary and secondary evidence stands explained by a
Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Cement Corporation of India
Limited vs. Purya®, (5-Judges Bench) as the former being evidence that the
law requires to be given first, the latter being evidence that may be given in the
absence of that original evidence when a proper explanation of its absence
has been given. The terms “primary and secondary” evidence apply to the
kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of the document, irrespective
of the purpose in which contents, when proved, may be received. It is also well
settled that when the copies are produced in the absence of original document,
they become good secondary evidence. Still, there must be foundational
evidence that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original. As stated supra,
Ex.A.2 is certified by the Sub-Registrar concerned on thorough verification of
the concerned register in the Sub-Registrar Office which was proved and
registration of Ex.A.2 is proved through P.W.4.
28. The present suit is filed for seeking relief of prohibitory injunction
which is an injunction simplicitor. The general principles as to when a mere
suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for
declaration or possession with injunction as a consequential relief are well
settled by the Apex Court where a plaintiff is in a lawful or peaceful possession
of the property and such possession is interfered or threatened by a defendant
a suit for injunction simplicitor will lie. A person as a right to protect his
possession agaihst any person, who does not prove better title by seeking
(2004) 8 see 270
20
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
prohibitory injunction. But, a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to
an injunction against the original owner. In the case on hand, by virtue of a
registered gift settlement deed which was executed in the year 1982, the
possession and title was transferred to the plaintiffs, the said gift settlement
deed is unchallenged by the donors or the children of donors or the grand
children of donors till so far. No legal evidence is produced by the appellants to
show that they acquired prima facie title in the plaint schedule property and
they are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
29. The learned counsel for the appellants placed a reliance of Kerala
High Court in Kurlan Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph^°. The ratio laid down in the
said case is applicable to the declaration of title and recovery of possession of
immovable property, but not an injunction simplicitor.
30. The learned counsel for the appellants placed another reliance of
the Full Bench of the Apex Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari
(dead) by LRs.^V
In the case on hand, no legal evidence is produced by the defendants to
prove they are having prima facie title or possession over the plaint schedule
property. They did not choose to adduce any evidence to prove the plea of
alleged adverse possession as pleaded by the defendants in the written
statement.
31. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the 1®*
plaintiff did not show the suit schedule property in the schedule annexure to
the I.P.No.24 of 2006 filed by the 1″‘ plaintiff and the 1″‘ plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit schedule property. The suppression of assets in an
insolvency proceedings is a subject matter of Insolvency Petition and it is for
AIR 1969 Ker316
2001 (2) ALD 40 (SC)
r
21 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
the Insolvency Court to look into that aspect which is a ground for dismissal of
the Insolvency Petition.
32. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the First
Appellate Court granted a relief of injunction without proof of possession and
placed a reliance of Hero Vinoth vs. Seshammal^^. But, in the case on hand,
as stated supra, the possession of the plaint schedule property was delivered
to the plaintiffs a way back in the year 1982 itself under a registered gift
settlement deed which was unchallenged till so far. The execution- of gift
settlement deed is admitted by the donors in the earlier suit proceedings and
also admitted by the son of the donors by name late Venkata Reddy in earlier
suit proceedings, therefore, now the legal representatives of one of the sons of
the donors cannot canvass that the said alleged gift settlement deed is a
fabricated document. Furthermore, no rebuttal evidence is produced by the
appellants to show that when the plaintiffs were dispossessed from out of the
suit schedule property.
33. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs drew attention of
this Court that none of the questions of law are not much substantial questions
of law, those are factual aspects, therefore, there are no merits in the second
appeal and placed a reliance of Satyender and others v. Saroj and others^^
wherein the full bench of Apex Court held as follows:
“Be that as it may, though the requirement of formulation of a substantial
question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts
Act, requires that only such decisions are to be considered in second
appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the
force of law or the court below have failed to determine some materialissue of law or custom or usage having the force of law. Therefore, what
is important is still a “question of law”. In other words, second appeal is
not a forum where court has to re-examine or re-appreciate question^ ofAIR 2006 sc 2234
2022 (5) ALD82 (SC)
22
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 offact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs had
claimed right over certain agricultural land and their case was that they
have the right to be declared the owner of this property and the
possession be handed over to the them, for the reasons that on this
particular property defendants and their predecessors-in-interes t were
the tenants of the plaintiffs. Their case was that defendant No. 2 was
their tenant who had sub-let the property in favour of his son, that ISdefendant No. 1 and therefore, the property should be reverted back to
the plaintiffs and they should be declared the owner and should be given
the possession of the property as well. Both the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court had held after evaluating the evidence placed by
the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 2 and his brothers (who were not
even made a party by the plaintiffs) were the tenants on the property and
defendant No.2 had not sub-let the property in favour of his son that is
defendant No. 1 and the
revenue entries being made in this regard in the
year 1978 are wrong and without any basis as there was no order of any
revenue authority for making such an entry. In short, the plaintiffs had
failed to prove their case as owner of the land in dispute. Hence their
case of declaration and possession was dismissed. The Second
Appellate Court however, quite erroneously, and without any justification,
gave an entirely new finding regarding two Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 on
which the plaintiffs claimed relief of declaration and possession, on the
same grounds as raised by them for the other Killa Nos. The pleadings
also show that the defendants had made a general denial of the plaintiffs’
claim for all the plots. Yet, the High Court held that since the defendants
had not made any claim for plot nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 and therefore by
logic a decree of declaration of possession ought to have been given to
the plaintiffs for these plots! This reasoning of the second Appellate
Court is erroneous for the simple reason that the burden of proof was on
the plaintiffs to prove their case, which they had failed. They have not
been able to prove to the satisfaction of the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court about their claim of any kind over this property.
Merely because the defendant did not raise a counter claim on this
23 VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011property it would not ipso facto mean that a decree ought to have been
granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have to prove their case on
the strength of their evidence. For this reason, the reasoning given by the
Second Appellate Court for decreeing the claim of the plaintiff for plot nos.
21//3/2 and 7//13 is incorrect and to that extent is liable to be set aside”.
In Santosh Hazari‘s case supra), the Apex Court held as follows;
“A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of
law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a
question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the
land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the
decision of the case, if answered either way, in so far as the rights of the
parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law involving in the
case there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and thequestion should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at
by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law
for a just and proper decision of the case. 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 circumstance of each case whether a question of law is asubstantial 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”.
In the case on hand, the execution of registered gift settlement deed is
happened a way back in the year 1982, the same is undisputed by the donors
and son of donors by name late Venkata Reddy in earlier suit proceedings.
The donees under the registered gift settlement deed are no other than the
daughter and son-in-law of the donors. As seen from the recitals of the gift
settlement deed, the possession was delivered to the donees i.e., plaintiffs and
the gift is accepted by them, no rebuttal evidence is placed by the appellants
to show on which date or in which month or in which year the plaintiffs are
24
VGKRJ
s.a.1108 of 2011
dispossessed from out of the plaint schedule property. Furthermore, no
rebuttal evidence is adduced by the defendants to show that they paid land
revenue to the government and their names are mutated in the revenue
records. The registered gift settlement deed, dated 18.01.1982 which ISi more
than 40 years document is not yet canceled till so far. Therefore, the title ISI
with the plaintiffs and the title follows possession. Moreover, the defendants
did not adduce
any legal evidence to show they are in possession and
enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.
34. In the case on hand, oral and documentary evidence is produced by
both the parties before the trial Court, the First Appellate Court analyzed the
evidence carefully and in effect found that the trial Court had erred in its
analysis of evidence and
given undue importance to discrepancies and
inconsistencies which were not material. There was no infirmity in the
reasoning of First Appellate Court which called for interference. Right of
appeal is not an automatic. Right of appeal is conferred by statue. When a
statue confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involves
substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit an appeal over
the factual findings arrived by the First Appellate Court. Furthermore , the
questions raised in a second appeal did not meet the mandatory requirements
as laid down by the Apex Court for holding that the questions are substantial
questions of law. Therefore, I held that there was no question of law, let alone
any substantial question of law, involved in the second appeal.
35. For the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
36. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the
second appeal.
25 VGKRJ
s.a.llOSof 2011
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
SDI- K.TATARAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// V
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Civil Judge(Senior Division),Gooty, Ananthapur District (with
records if any)
2. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gooty, Ananthapur District
3. One CC to Sri. Vivekananda Virupaksha Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri. Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad Advocate [OPUC]
5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi
6. THREE CD COPIES
stu
TAG
‘1
HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/06/2025
JUDGMENT + DECREE
SA.No.1108 of 2011
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL