APHC010132892024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL NO: 332/2024

Between:

Chandu Sankara Rao ...APPELLANT

AND

Varikuti Siva Satyanarayana ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V V N NARAYANA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 16.06.2026

Pronounced on 24.06.2026

Uploaded on 24.06.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

SECOND APPEAL No. 332 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree

dated 31.10.2023, in A.S.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District

Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, confirming the Judgment and decree

dated 27.12.2018 in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Eluru.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the

defendant in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Eluru.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.147 of 2014, on the file of the I

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, with a prayer for specific performance of

contract directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in

pursuance of the oral agreement of sale dated 29.07.2009 in respect of the

plaint schedule property by receiving the agreed amount of Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees forty thousand only) before the elders subsequent to the police

complaint.

4. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, after conclusion of

trial, dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff

in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the

Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. The learned Principal

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, dismissed the first appeal with

costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant approached this Court

by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be

referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in

O.S.No.147 of 2014 is as follows:

I. The defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and

on 29.07.2009 he purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of land from the

defendant for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff pleaded that,

prior to the said transaction, the defendant had entered into an

agreement of sale with his vendor, Sri Maddirala Venkata Subbarao @

Somasivarao of Ammapalem, in respect of the plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff further pleaded that he was informed by the defendant that

he had agreed to purchase the property from the said vendor for a

consideration of Rs.50,000/- in December, 2008. The plaintiff further

pleaded that the defendant offered to sell the said extent of Ac.0.20

cents to the plaintiff, representing that he was not interested in obtaining

a registered sale deed in his favour. Believing the representations made

by the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the

defendant on 29.07.2009 in the presence of Sri Pamarthi Venkata

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

Satyanarayana, Sri Kotaru Sambasiva Rao and Sri Dyvala

Venkateswara Rao under an oral agreement of sale and as the parties

were closely related, the plaintiff did not insist upon the execution of any

written agreement or receipt evidencing the payment of sale

consideration.

II. The plaintiff further pleaded that after the oral agreement of sale, he

was put in possession of the property and, during the year 2009 itself,

constructed an RCC residential building thereon by spending an amount

of about Rs.12,00,000/-. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant,

being a Civil Engineer, periodically supervised the construction

undertaken by the plaintiff, thereby acknowledging the plaintiff's

possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff further pleaded

that he had been repeatedly requesting the defendant to perform his

part of the contract and execute a registered sale deed in his favour.

However, the defendant allegedly postponed the matter on one pretext

or another. Since the parties were close relatives, the plaintiff waited in

the hope that the defendant would perform his part of contract and

execute the sale deed. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant

subsequently brought into existence a registered sale deed dated

25.02.2012 in his favour containing false recitals and incorrect

boundaries in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff

further pleaded that when disputes arose between the parties, the

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

matter was reported to the police and the Station House Officer advised

both parties to settle the dispute amicably through village elders.

III. The plaintiff further pleaded that the dispute was placed before village

elders, namely, Sri Kotaru Sambasiva Rao and Sri Pamarthi Venkata

Satyanarayana on behalf of the defendant, and Sri Dyvala

Venkateswara Rao and Sri Kandula Satyanarayana on behalf of the

plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that the elders advised him to pay

an additional sum of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant and suggested that

the defendant execute a registered sale deed thereafter. However, the

defendant did not heed to the said advice.The plaintiff further pleaded

that he got issued a registered legal notice dated 29.07.2013 to be

issued to the defendant, calling upon him to receive the balance amount

of Rs.40,000/- as suggested by the elders and execute a registered sale

deed in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff further

pleaded that in response thereto, the defendant issued a reply notice

dated 11.09.2013 containing false and untenable allegations and

refused to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained

to file the present suit seeking for a decree of specific performance of

the oral agreement of sale dated 29.07.2009 by directing the defendant

to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule

property, more fully described in the schedule attached to the plaint.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the brief

averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

I. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff failed to produce any valid

receipt or documentary evidence to substantiate his allegation that a

sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid to the defendant on 29.07.2009 in the

presence of Sri Pamarthi Venkata Satyanarayana, Sri Kotaru

Sambasiva Rao and Sri Dyvala Venkateswara Rao. The defendant

further pleaded that the alleged oral agreement of sale and payment of

consideration are false and have been invented only for the purpose of

the suit. The defendant further pleaded that he is the lawful purchaser

and absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and is entitled to

protect and safeguard his legitimate rights over the same. The

defendant further pleaded that in view of the unauthorized acts of the

plaintiff in relation to the property, he was constrained to institute

O.S.No.413 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Eluru, seeking recovery of possession and permanent

injunction. The defendant further pleaded that, in the said suit, the trail

Court granted status quo in I.A.No.931 of 2012 in his favour, restraining

the plaintiff from proceeding with any further construction in the suit

property. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff filed his

counter and written statement in the said proceedings containing false,

baseless and concocted allegations.

II. The defendant further pleaded that the present suit is frivolous,

vexatious and devoid of merit and the suit is neither maintainable in law

nor supported by any genuine cause of action. The defendant further

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

pleaded that the plaintiff has initiated the present suit with an ulterior

motive to grab the valuable property belonging to the defendant and

thereby interfere with his lawful rights and possession over the property.

The defendant further pleaded that there is no cause of action in the suit

and as such, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Eluru, framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether, the defendant is liable to execute registered sale deed

in favour of plaintiff?

2) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked. On behalf of

the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-19 were

marked.

10. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, 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 plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.43

of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at

Eluru, wherein the following points came up for consideration:

1) Whether Chandu Sankara Rao could prove the existence of the alleged

agreement of sale (oral) with valid consideration entered with Varikuti

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

Siva Satyanarayana in the presence of elders and as such, he is

entitled for the relief of specific performance for execution of regular

sale deed?

2) Whether Chandu Sankara Rao has any grounds to interfere and set

aside the impugned decree?

3) To what relief?

11. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru,

i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the

points, as above, against the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal suit with costs,

filed by the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the

plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 2014 filed the present second appeal before this

Court.

12. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel, appearing for the

respondents.

13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor

an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with

law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C., could be

admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that substantial question

of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper test for determining

whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or

whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so,

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by

the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of

alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi

1

,

the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of High Court to investigate

grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely,

the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances

two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court

will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other

approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have

not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a

substantial question of law in second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts,

documentary evidence and contents of documents cannot be held to be

raising a substantial question of law.

14. The plaintiff having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles

and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law.

15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by

both the Courts below, therefore, the grounds urged in the second appeal are

to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial

question of law. The contention of appellant is that the judgment and decree of

the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that

the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree

1

(2007) 8 SCC 155

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court as well as the first

appellate Court.

16. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the defendant is the absolute

owner of the plaint schedule property and on 29.07.2009, he purchased an

extent of Ac.0.20 cents from the defendant for an amount of Rs.70,000/-. He

further pleaded that he did not insist on the defendant executing any

document evidencing the agreement of sale and receiving a consideration of

Rs.70,000/- and he himself constructed an RCC building in the plaint schedule

property by spending an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in the year 2009 itself. He

further pleaded that he has been repeatedly requesting the defendant to fulfill

his contract, but the defendant had been requesting the plaintiff to wait for

some time without giving any reasons and that he is constrained to file the

suit.

17. The alleged oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and

receipt of consideration of Rs.70,000/- is seriously disputed by the

respondent/defendant. Therefore, the entire burden casts upon the plaintiff,

who approached the Civil Court for seeking relief of specific performance of

agreement of sale. The plaintiff has to plead and prove that he obtained an

oral agreement of sale from the defendant on 29.07.2009. Even as per the

own case of the plaintiff herein, the defendant is not the registered owner of

the plaint schedule property by the date of 29.07.2009.

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the

evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit and

P.W.1 is the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he paid the

consideration of Rs.70,000/- in the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. But, P.W.2

and P.W.3 admitted in their evidence in cross-examination that they have no

personal knowledge about the offer of the sale of the plaint schedule property

of the defendant and they pleaded ignorance about the conversation that took

place between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the alleged sale

transaction and they also asserted that they do not know about the actual day

and week when the plaintiff constructed the structure in the plaint schedule

property. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 about the

offer of sale of the plaint schedule property by the defendant. Furthermore,

P.W.1 himself admitted that by the time when the defendant offered to sell the

plaint schedule property, none were present. Admittedly, no material is placed

by the appellant to show that there was an agreement between him and the

defendant in respect of the purchase of the plaint schedule property and that

he paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- under an oral agreement of sale to the

defendant. There is no whisper in the plaint that there was a mutual

agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is well settled that an

agreement must create rights and obligations between both the parties. In the

case at hand, the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged agreement between

himself and the defendant.

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

19. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the Courts

below failed to consider that the defendant was not ready to execute a sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff. As could be seen from the averments in the

plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that he has been requesting the defendant to fulfill

his part of the contract, but the defendant requested the plaintiff to wait for

some time. Admittedly, there is no oral evidence to show that the plaintiff

herein repeatedly requested the defendant and the defendant postponed

execution of the regular registered sale deed. There is no evidence on record

to show that the plaintiff herein issued a legal notice to the defendant to

perform his alleged part of the contract. In the case at hand, the appellant

failed to prove that there was a valid agreement between himself and the

defendant. Unless and until the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale proves that there is a valid agreement between both the

parties, the question of deciding readiness and willingness does not arise and

the question of granting relief of specific performance of oral agreement of

sale will arise when there is an agreement between both the parties to the

suit.

20. As per the own case of the plaintiff herein, the defendant herein is not the

registered owner of the plaint schedule property by the date of the alleged oral

agreement of sale dated 29.07.2009. As noticed supra, the alleged oral

agreement of sale and also payment of an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the

defendant by the plaintiff is not at all proved by the appellant/plaintiff. Even as

per the own case of the plaintiff, the alleged oral agreement is dated

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

29.07.2009. But the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2014, i.e. after five (05)

years of the alleged oral agreement of sale. It was pleaded by the plaintiff in

the plaint that he issued a legal notice dated 29.07.2013 to the defendant and

on 11.09.2013, the defendant issued a reply with false allegations to the

plaintiff herein. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the said notices

were not produced by the appellant/plaintiff.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant placed a case law in Hero Vinoth

(Minor) Vs. Seshammal

2

, wherein the High Court of Bombay held as follows:

“24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC, relevant for this case, may

be summarized thus:-

(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a

question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a

question of law. Construction of a document involving the application

of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when

there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a

principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of

law.

(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a

substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A

question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case

(that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the

suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any

specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from

binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A

substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where

the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of

law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter,

either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second

type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the

2

(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material

question, violates the settled position of law.

(iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with

concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule.

Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below

have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the

courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the

law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of

proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only

refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also

refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not

reasonably capable of supporting the finding.”

22. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the

concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the

issues/points in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff do not brook

interference and that both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit

of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were

based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and

there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the

findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial

question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court

as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly

speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions

of law.

23. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are

substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and

that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal

VGKR, J.

SA_332_2024

at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall

not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and

when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is

reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev

Kaur v. Kaki

3

. In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after

careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no

substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for

dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100

of Civil Procedure Code.

24. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission,

confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending

applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 24.06.2026

SRT

3

AIR 2006 SC 1975