Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100
Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent findings
High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless such findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or recorded by ignoring material evidence. Existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non.
(Paras 31–32)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106
Notice to quit – Sufficiency
Filing of eviction proceedings and issuance of notice demanding vacation of premises clearly demonstrate intention of landlord to terminate tenancy. Eviction suit itself constitutes sufficient notice to quit.
(Paras 17–18)
Tenant holding over – Tenant at sufferance – Distinction
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 116 & 111
A tenant continuing in possession after expiry of lease without consent of landlord is a tenant at sufferance and not a tenant holding over. Acceptance of rent after expiry of lease is sine qua non to claim tenancy by holding over.
(Paras 18–23)
Landlord and Tenant – Default in payment of rent
Where documentary evidence establishes persistent default in payment of rent and refusal of landlord to accept rent on account of default, tenant cannot claim protection as tenant holding over.
(Paras 15–16, 23)
Eviction suit – Non-joinder of parties – Co-owners
One of the co-owners or legal representatives of the deceased landlord is competent to maintain a suit for eviction against the tenant. Non-joinder of other co-owners or legal heirs is not fatal in the absence of objection from them.
(Paras 26–29)
Damages / Mesne profits – Fixation
Assessment of damages for unauthorised occupation, based on evidence on record and concurrent findings of courts below, does not warrant interference in second appeal in the absence of illegality.
(Paras 24–25)
Additional evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
Rejection of application to receive additional evidence by the appellate court after assigning reasons does not warrant interference in second appeal.
(Para 29)
Second Appeal – Dismissal
Where no substantial question of law arises from concurrent findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(Paras 31–33)
ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)
1. Nature of the litigation
The suit was filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the defendant-tenant and recovery of damages. The Trial Court decreed eviction and damages. The First Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding court, confirmed the decree. The defendant invoked Section 100 CPC.
(Paras 1–8)
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant
The landlord-tenant relationship was admitted. The tenancy originated under an unregistered lease deed dated 26-04-2001 for 11 months, with subsequent continuation and enhancement of rent.
(Paras 3, 5, 13)
3. Default in payment of rent
The Trial Court and Appellate Court relied on documentary evidence (Exs.A7 to A9) and admissions to conclude that the defendant committed default in payment of rent. These findings were concurrent and based on evidence.
(Paras 15–16)
4. Notice under Section 106 TPA
The High Court held that:
-
filing of eviction proceedings itself manifests intention to terminate tenancy, and
-
issuance of Ex.A3 legal notice further establishes termination.
Hence, the plea of invalid notice under Section 106 TPA was rejected.
(Paras 17–18)
5. Tenant holding over vs tenant at sufferance
The Court elaborated the distinction:
-
absence of acceptance of rent after expiry of lease negates tenancy by holding over;
-
defendant, having defaulted and whose rent was not accepted, was only a tenant at sufferance.
(Paras 18–23)
6. Non-joinder of necessary parties
The Court reiterated settled law that one co-owner or legal representative can maintain eviction proceedings. The death of the original landlord and substitution by his son did not render the suit defective.
(Paras 26–29)
7. Damages
The fixation of damages at Rs.5,000/- per month was based on evidence and admissions. The High Court found no illegality or perversity warranting interference.
(Paras 24–25)
8. Scope of interference under Section 100 CPC
Re-emphasising settled jurisprudence, the Court held that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings in the absence of a substantial question of law. None arose in the present case.
(Paras 31–32)
9. Final outcome
The second appeal was dismissed without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
(Para 33)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A tenant continuing in possession after expiry of lease without acceptance of rent by the landlord is a tenant at sufferance and not a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-
Filing of eviction proceedings and issuance of notice demanding vacation constitute sufficient notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-
One co-owner or legal representative of a deceased landlord is competent to maintain a suit for eviction; non-joinder of other co-owners or heirs is not fatal unless prejudice is shown.
-
Concurrent findings on default in payment of rent and fixation of damages, based on appreciation of evidence, are not open to interference in second appeal in the absence of perversity or illegality.
-
Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC can be exercised only when a substantial question of law arises; re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible.
APHC010309512025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
0*?
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 505 OF 2025
Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and decree
passed in A.S No. 13 of 2023, dated 25-02-2025 on the file of the Special
Judge For Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional
District Judge, Srikakulam confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S
No.lOO of 2014, dated 22-08-2022, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Srikakulam.
Between:
Balijepalli Raja Sekhar, S/o. Late Apparao, Aged about 59 years R/o.
D.No.4-333, Sri Visakha A Colony, Peddapadu Road, Srikakulam Town,
Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Appellant/( Appellant/Defendant)
AND
1. Gorle Venkata Prasada Rao, (Since died)
2. Gorle Damodara Sai Ramesh, S/o. Late Venkata PRasada
about 46 years R/o. D.No.8-6-77, Gorlevari Veedhi
and District, Andhra Pradesh.
Rao, Aged
Srikakulam Town
...Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2Q7R
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 Judgment and decree dated 22.08.2022 passed in O.S. No. 100
of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
was confirmed vide judgment and decree dated
25.02.2025 passed in A.S. No. 13 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for
trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV Additional District Judge,
Snkakulam, pending disposal of the above Second Appeal.
Srikakulam, which
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkat Sailendra G
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Srinivas Ambati
The Court made the following Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 505/2025
Between;
I.BALiJEPALLI RAJA SEKHAR, S/0. LATE APPARAO.AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS R/0. D.NO.4-333, SRI VISAKHA A COLONY,
PEDDAPADU ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN,
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
SRIKAKULAM
...APPELLANT
AND
1.GORLE VENKATA PRASADA RAO, (SINCE DIED)
2.GORLE DAMODARA SAI RAMESH, S/0. LATE VENKATA
PRASADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/0. D.NO.8-6-77,
GORLEVARI VEEDHI
ANDHRA PRADESH.
SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT,
...RESPONDENT(S):
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.08.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to y
see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ SECOND APPEAL NO: 505/2025
% 14.08.2025
SECOND APPEAL NO: 505/2025
Between:
1.BALIJEPALLI RAJA SEKHAR, S/0. LATE APPARAO.AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS R/0. D.NO.4-333, SRI VISAKHA A COLONY,
PEDDAPADU ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN,
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
SRIKAKULAM
...APPELLANT
AND
1.GORLE VENKATA PRASADA RAO, (SINCE DIED)
2.GORLE DAMODARA SAI RAMESH, S/0. LATE VENKATA
PRASADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/0. D.NO.8-6-77,
GORLEVARI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
! Counsel for Petitioner
Counsel for Respondents
: Sri G.Venkat Sailendra
: Sri Srinivas Ambati
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2008)2 see 728
2) (2020) 11 see 782
3) (1995) 5 sec 698
4) (2020) 9 sec 393
5) (2004) 3 sec 178
6) AIR 2011 SC 2161
This Court delivered the following:
APHC010309512025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3331]
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 5Q5/202fi
Between:
Balijepalli Raja Sekhar ...APPELLANT
AND
Gorle Venkata Prasada Rao and Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.SRINIVAS AMBATI
...RESPONDENT(S)
2.
The Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The defendant in the suit filed the above second appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2022 in O.S.No.100 of 2014 on the
file of Additional Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam confirmed by the
judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025 in A.S.No.13 of 2023 on the file
of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-IV
Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.
Page 2 of 11
2. For brevity, the parties herein are referred to as per their status in
the suit.
The deceased plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.100 of 2014 against the
defendant seeking eviction. Pending the suit, the sole plaintiff died, and
his son, being the legal representative, came on record as 2'''^ defendant.
3.
Facts, in brief, as set out in the plaint, are that the plaintiff
leased out the suit schedule property to the defendant under a lease
deed dated 26.04.2001 for 11 months, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/-
payable on or before the 5*^ of every succeeding month. The defendant is
required to operate a timber business by raising temporary sheds, and
upon expiry of the lease period, the defendant must deliver vacant
possession to the 1®‘ plaintiff. After expiry of initial lease, at the request
of the defendant, the 1®‘ plaintiff agreed to continue the defendant
tenant with an agreed rent of Rs.4,000/- per month from April 2002.
Thereafter, the defendant committed default in payment of monthly rents.
The deceased 1®‘ plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Rent
Controller, Srikakulam, for eviction of the defendant; however, the said
RCC was dismissed on technical grounds. Thereafter, the defendant
stopped paying rent to the 1®‘ plaintiff, and the 1®' plaintiff shifted to
Visakhapatnam to undergo treatment.
O.S.No.33 of 2009 seeking a permanent injunction, and the said suit was
dismissed. The defendant is a trespasser. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit
for eviction and recovery of damages at Rs.5,000/- per month from
January 2011 onwards.
4.
as
The defendant filed suit
5. a) The defendant filed a written statement and admitted the
landlord and tenant relationship. The defendant contended that he paid
Page 3 of 11
Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff as a security deposit and raised a permanent
shed with a zinc sheet roof for running a timber depot. The defendant
never committed any default; however, the 1®' plaintiff filed R.C.C.No.9 of
2003 for eviction. Pending the said RCC, the defendant paid rents to the
1®* plaintiff, and even after the dismissal of RCC, the defendant paid rents
through money order, and the same was received by the 1®* plaintiff till
December 2005. Thereafter, the 1®^ plaintiff refused to receive the rents
from January 2006 to May 2007.
b) The defendant got issued a legal notice to the 1®* plaintiff on
16.07.2007 to furnish his bank account details. Even after receipt of legal
notice, the 1®* plaintiff did not choose to give any reply. The defendant
filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikakulam, seeking a perpetual injunction.
c) An additional written statement was filed. It was contended that
the 2'^'^ plaintiff failed to add the mother and sister, and they are proper
and necessary parties to the suit. The 2"^^ plaintiff has to prove the
registered Will dated. 09.02.2009, said to have been executed by the 1
plaintiff.
St
During the trial, the 2"'^ plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got
marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and
got examined D.W.2. Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked.
6.
The Trial Court by judgment dated 22.8.2022 decreed 7. the suit with
costs, directing the defendant to vacate the property within one year.
Further directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the 2"^ plaintiff
Further towards. damages from January 2011 to December 2012.
directed to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing
Page 4 of 11
nd of the suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession to the 2
defendant.
8. The defendant filed the appeal A.S.No.13 of 2023. The Appellate
Court, being the final fact-finding Court, dismissed the appeal by
judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025. Assailing the same, the present
second appeal is filed.
9. Heard Sri G.Venkata Sailendra, learned counsel for appellant and
Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for 2*^^ respondent, on caveat.
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the suit filed by
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed, since there is no valid notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would also submit that
the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. He
would submit that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on
record in a proper perspective. He would submit that directing the
appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards damages is without
conducting a proper enquiry.
10.
Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the 2”^^ respondent,
supported the judgments of the Courts below.
11.
12. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:
1) Whether the notice issued by the deceased plaintiff
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
suffers from any legal infirmity?
2) Whether the suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary
parties?
Page 5 of 11
3) Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages @
Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the appellate Court?
13. A perusal of both oral and documentary evidence on record, there
is no dispute that the deceased 1®' plaintiff let out the schedule property
to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- under Ex.AI
unregistered lease deed dated 26.04.2001 for 11 months. The 1®* plaintiff
pleaded that the defendant agreed to pay rent @ Rs.4,000/- per month
from April 2002 and thereafter committed default. As per the recitals in
Ex.AI, the defendant agreed to vacate the premises after completion of
the lease period and deliver vacant possession to the lessor. Ex.AI
further discloses that the defendant took vacant land on rent to run a
timber depot.
R.C.C.No.9 of 2003 filed by the 1®* plaintiff on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking eviction, was dismissed on
17.03.2005 on technical grounds, but not on merits. The defendant sent
the rents by way of money order pending the RCC till December 2005,
and the 1®‘ plaintiff received the same without prejudice. A perusal of
Ex.A3 legal notice issued by the 1®* plaintiff would reveal that the 1®‘
plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate the premises as he
committed default in payment of the agreed enhanced rent.
14.
15. The defendant also filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 against the 1
plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction. Suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 was
dismissed, and the appeal A.S.No.80 of 2015 was also dismissed.
St
Page 6 of 11
The main contention of the defendant is that, despite legal notice,
the 1®‘ plaintiff failed to furnish the bank account details to deposit the
rents. Thereafter, he filed suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 seeking a perpetual
injunction. The plaintiff in suit O.S.No.33 of 2009 filed I.A.No.230 of 2009
to permit him to deposit the rent from October 2004 to October 2007.
Thereafter, he filed I.A.No.1018 of 2009 seeking an amendment in
I.A.No.230 of 2009 concerning the amount due from January 2006 to
November 2009 only. I.A.No.1018 of 2009 was dismissed, and the
was marked as Ex.A8. The Trial Court recorded a finding based upon
EXS.A7 to A9 regarding default of the appellant/defendant in paying the
rents. The same was confirmed by the appellate Court and thus
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, in the absence
of any contra evidence cannot be interfered with.
16.
same
17. Filing an eviction suit by the landlord is sufficient notice to the
tenant to vacate the property. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nopany
Investment Pvt Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh\ held that filing of an eviction
suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Filing of
RCC by the 1"* plaintiff against the defendant discloses the intention of
the landlord to evict the tenant. Thereafter, the 1®‘ plaintiff got issued
Ex.A3 notice dated 05.09.2008 demanding that the defendant shall
vacate the said premises. Ex.A3 notice further demonstrates the intention
of the plaintiff to terminate the lease.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
defendant is a tenant holding over, and both the courts failed to consider
the same. Whether the appellant is a tenant holding over, as per Section
116 of the Transfer of Property Act. At this juncture, let this Court
(2008) 2 see 728
Page 7 of 11
emphasise the difference between a tenant holding over and a tenant at
sufferance.
A Tenant at sufferance is one who comes into possession of land
by lawful title, but holds it by wrong after the expiry of the lease by efflux
of time. The tenant at sufferance is, therefore, one who wrongfully
continues in possession after the extinction of a valid lease period. A
tenancy at sufferance does not create the relationship of landlord and
tenant.
19.
20. The expression “holding over” is used in the sense of retaining
possession. The lessee holding over with the consent of the lessor is in a
better position than a mere tenant at will. Section 116 of the Transfer of
Property Act, the lease would be renewed as a tenant holding over only if
the lessor accepts the payment of rent after the expiry of the lease
period.
21. Thus, A distinction can be drawn between a tenant continuing in
possession after the determination of the lease, without the consent of
the landlord and a tenant doing so with the landlord's consent. The
former is called a tenant by sufferance law, and the latter class of tenants
is called a tenant holding over or a tenant at will.
In Sevoke Properties Ltd. Vs. W.B. State Electricity
Distribution Co. Ltd.^, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the aspect of
the tenant at sufferance. The defendant therein continued in possession
after the expiry of the lease period, which ended on 24.05.1996. A suit
for possession was filed without serving a notice under Section 106 of
the TP Act. The stand of the defendant was that he was a tenant holding
22.
^ (2020) 11 see 782
Page 8 of 11
over. Such an argument was not accepted, and it was held that after the
expiry of the lease period in terms of an unregistered document of lease,
the possession of the respondent was that of a tenant at sufferance.
23. The same proposition of law was also held in R.V. Bhupal
Prasad Vs. State of A.P.^ and Nand Ram Vs. Jagdish Prasad'*.
In fact, D.W.1 admitted that he did not pay the rent to the plaintiff
from 2007 to 2009 till the filing of suit O.S.No.33 of 2009. The evidence
on record would reveal that the 1®* plaintiff refused to receive the rent as
the defendant committed default in payment of enhanced rent @
Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is a tenant holding over falls to the ground.
Exs.A7 to A9 would demonstrate non-payment of rents and hence, the
defendant cannot claim the status of tenant holding over. The defendant
can be termed as a tenant at sufferance. The tenant at sufferance is not
entitled to claim any right to continue in the suit-schedule property.
24.
The contention of the defendant that he paid Rs.20,000/- towards
security deposit to the 1®* plaintiff, the Court below recorded the finding
that the defendant failed to prove the same. As discussed supra, as per
Ex.A7, the defendant himself admitted that the rent due is from October
2004 to October 2007. On a scrutiny of evidence on record, and
considering all the aspects, the trial court fixed the damages payable by
the defendant at Rs 5,000/-. The appellate court confirmed the same.
This court doesn’t find any irregularity or illegality vis-a-vis the damages,
and, in fact, the appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality.
25.
'(1995) 5 see 698
" (2020) 9 see 393
Page 9 of 11
Concerning the plea of the defendant vis-a-vis non-joinder of
necessary parties, it is a settled position of law that one of the co-owners
can maintain the suit for eviction against the tenant. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in India Umbrella Mfg. Co. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla®,
considered an identical issue and observed as follows:
26.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied
that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the
co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally
owned by the co-owners. (See Sn Ram Pasricha y. Jagannath [{^976) 4
see 184] and Dhannalalv. Kalawatibai [{2002) 6 See 16] See para 25.)
This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit
for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right
and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is
assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not
agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their
disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co
owners. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit
so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the
parties stand crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the
co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of
institution of the suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a
subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the
tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law.”
■6.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankara Coop. Housing Society
Ltd. Vs. M.Prabhakar and Ors.®, held that when the other co-owners do
not dispute the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a definite right to seek eviction,
on any one of the grounds viz., personal occupation or subsequent
default or willful default. Therefore, the plaintiff has got absolute right, title
and interest in every part and parcel of joint property or coparcenary
27.
^(2004)3 see 178
'’AIR2011.se 2161
Page 10 of 11
under the Hindu Law by all coparceners, and the defendant has no right
to close the doors to the plaintiff seeking eviction on that count.
28. In this case at hand, the 1®* plaintiff died pending the suit, and the
2'"'^ plaintiff came on record as the legal representative based on the
testament. Even for the sake of argument, in the absence of the
testament, the 2'^'^ plaintiff, being one of the legal representatives of the
deceased plaintiff, can continue the suit against the tenant for eviction.
The other legal representatives did not oppose the same by filing any
interlocutory applications.
29. Before the appellate Court, the defendant filed I.A.No.453 of 2024
to receive certain documents as additional evidence. In paragraph 33 of
the judgment, the appellate Court discussed the application filed under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and dismissed the same by a separate order
by assigning reasons.
30. In the case at hand, the Courts below evaluated the evidence
^.record and concluded that the defendant/tenant failed to pay the monthly
rents; the defendant/tenant is not a tenant holding over, and 2"^^ plaintiff,
being the legal representative, can continue the suit. Thus, both the
Courts recorded the concurrentfindings.
on
31. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC,
must confine itself to the substantial question of law involved in the
appeal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with
the concurrent findings of the Court below where the Courts below
exercised the discretion judicially. Further, the existence of a substantial
question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. This
Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the
Page 11 of 11
Courts are manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. If
the findings are based on inadmissible evidence or failure to consider
relevant evidence, the High Court under Section 100 of CPC can
interfere.
32. Given the discussion supra and facts and circumstances of this
case, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on an
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and it does not call for
any interference of this Court as per Section 100 of CPC. This Court
finds no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, involved
in the present second appeal. Hence, the second appeal fails and is
liable to be dismissed, however, without costs.
33. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- V DIWAKAR
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
SEC'R^fOFFICER
One fair copy to the Honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)
1. The SpecialJudge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district One CC to Sri. Venkat Sailendra G., Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Srinivas Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Nine (09) LR copies
5. The Under Secretary, Union
Company Affairs, New Delhi
//TRUE COPY//
To,
of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and
6. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association
Library, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi\
7. Two CD Copies
Stu
sree
. HIGH COURT
DATED;14/08/2025
i'*
PV' ■'
JUDGMENT
SA NO. 505 OF 2025 I 2 3 AUG 2025
Current saeiion . •
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS
No comments:
Post a Comment