JUDGMENT :- The present Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below in OS No.235/95 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram and in AS No.1/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The appellants-plaintiffs filed the said suit praying for declaration of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property as their absolute property and also for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 7th respondent-7th defendant from obtaining possession of the 2nd item of the plaint schedule property either through Court or by forcible eviction and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. On service of suit summons before the Court of first instance, defendants 1 to 5 had not chosen to contest the matter and were set ex parte. The 6th and 7th respondent-6th and 7th defendants in the suit had put in their written statements and on the strength of the pleadings, the Court of first instance having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DWs1 to 3, marked EX.A.1 to EX.A.29 and EX.B.1 and EX.B.2 and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, recorded findings relating to issues 1 to 3 commencing from Paras 10 to 46 and came to the conclusion that the appellants-plaintiffs failed to prove the title and possession over the plaint schedule properties and also the plea that late Kukkala Manikyam executed EX.A.5 - will and ultimately answered the said issues 1 to 3 against the appellants-plaintiffs. While answering issue No.4 at Para 47, the Court of first instance dismissed the suit, no doubt, without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs carried the matter by way of appeal AS No 1/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram and the appellate Court having formulated the point for consideration, proceeded to discuss with the oral and documentary evidence available on record, commencing from Paras 10 to 15, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Decree and Judgment made by the Court of first instance do not suffer from any illegality and accordingly dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal had been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and this Court by judgment dated 26.7.2005 after formulating the points for consideration at Para 14, proceeded to discuss with the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded both by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by both the Courts below relating to the validity of EX.A.5 being unsustainable findings, the second appeal to be allowed by setting aside the Decrees and Judgments of the Courts below and accordingly allowed the second appeal, but without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the Court auction purchaser 7th respondent -7th defendant carried the matter to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1245/2008 and the Apex Court was of the opinion that the judgment made in the second appeal by this Court without formulating the substantial questions of law in a second appeal cannot be sustained and accordingly while setting aside the judgment made by this Court, restored the second appeal to its original file and requested this Court to dispose of the second appeal preferably within a period of six months from the date of supply of a copy of the order and further made it clear that the Apex Court had not gone into the merits of the appeal which shall be decided after formulating the substantial questions of law and then decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Thus, in the light of the said order made by the Apex Court specified supra dated 12.2.2008, this second appeal is coming up for final hearing before this Court.

3. Submissions mark by Sri Agastya Sarma: Sri Agastya Sarma, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had pointed out to the substantial question of law on the strength of which the second appeal had been admitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document