Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Manmadha Rao, J.
Kanneganti Kamalakar - Appellant
Versus
Nishtala Subramanya Satya Venkata - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 472, 473, 474, 483, 484 and 485 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2023
JUDGMENT: injunction - Civil Procedure Code - Order XLI Rule 23-A, Order XLI Rule 27 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to remand of the suit for trial and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27. The court emphasized that remand should only be ordered when a re-trial is considered necessary and that additional evidence should have a direct bearing on the pronouncement of judgment. The court also highlighted that an innocent party cannot be made a victim due to the default of their advocate. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and the consequences of failing to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal. The defendants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellate court's decision to remand the matter was justified as the appellant did not cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses or adduce any evidence. The court emphasized that the appellant had the opportunity to file a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC to adduce evidence before the first appellate court, but failed to do so. The court held that the appellant's failure to take necessary steps cannot be brushed aside, and found no illegality or perversity in the first appellate court's orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first appellate court's decision to remand the matter back to the trial court was justified, considering the appellant's failure to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. It highlighted the legal provisions related to remand of the suit for trial and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27. The court also emphasized that an innocent party cannot be made a victim due to the default of their advocate.
Final Decision: All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, and the interim orders granted by the court were vacated. The court found no merit in the appeals and held that the first appellate court's decision to remand the matter was justified.
JUDGMENT
1. As the issue involved in these appeals is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Judgment.
2. The facts in these appeals are similar and identical, therefore C.M.A.No.472 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are referred to for convenience.
3. The impugned A.S.No.09 of 2021 was filed by the unsuccessful 1st defendant against the decree and judgment in O.S No.21 of 019 dtd. 5/5/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram (for short "the trial Court").
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and for costs. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property situated at Vizianagaram. Originally, the South Eastern Railway Employees Co-operative Building Society, Vizianagaram, acquired land in an extent of Ac.8.76 cents by way of purchase from several original Owners by paying necessary sale consideration and taken over possession of the same and the said Society got approved the proposal for layout and the plaint schedule two plots are part-and-parcel of the said layout. After approval of layout, the said Society through its President, sold out the plaint schedule plots to the plaintiff and handed over possession of the plaint schedule plots and ever since the plaintiff, being the bona fide purchaser, has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule plots with all absolute rights, title, interest and possession. In the village Adangal of Dharmapuri at column Nos. 12 and 13 show that the land in S.No.64 in an extent of Ac.4.90 and Ac.3.90 cents are house plots. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property together another plot No.59 adjacent layout laid down by the above Society. Further, the defendants without having any manner of right or title trying to encroach into the plaint schedule property and also trying to create some spurious documents in collusion with each other and third parties, which are not at all binding on the plaintiff.
6. While so, on 11/9/2015, the defendants, taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff in Vizianagaram, tried to interfere with the plaint schedule property, but because of protest and intervention of local mediators, the defendants could not interfere with the plaint schedule property and left the place by proclaiming that they would again come and interfere with the plaint schedule property, Hence the suit.
7. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying all the material allegations in the plaint and contended that an extent of Ac.3.90 cents is a part in S.No.64/2 of Dharmapuri village, which was originally purchased by one Bulusu Lakshmi Devamma under registered sale deed dtd. 9/5/1927 from one Namburu Venkata Raja Rajaji and his son, ever since she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and after her death, her two daughters viz., Nishtala Annapoornamma and Gorthi Sureedamma have succeeded to her estate, who enjoyed the said property and got cultivated through tenant Ryots. Thereafter, since disputes arose between the two sisters and tenant Ryots, Annapoornamma and Sureedamma have filed suit in O.S.No.72 of 1977 on the file of Sub Court, Vizianagaram, for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which was subsequently decreed declaring that both the sisters are the absolute Owners over Ac.3.90 cents of land in S.No.64/2.
8. While so, both Annapoornamma and Sureedamma died without issues. Since Sureedamma predeceased to Annapoornamma, she executed a Will on 18/7/2000 in favour of the 1" defendant bequeathing the property of Ac.3.90 and subsequently the Testator/Annapoornamma died on 16/9/2001, thereby, the Will acted upon and the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing parties with the opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The judgment also emphasized the legal pro....
The appellate court must decide cases based on available evidence and cannot remand without necessity, as doing so prolongs litigation without serving justice.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of allowing the amendment of pleadings and production of additional evidence to achieve substantial justice, as provided under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Order 41....
Point of law: Rule 23- A it is evident when the suit is decreed otherwise than on a preliminary issue and retrial is considered necessary, it is only then that the case has to be remanded. In other w....
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD NOT REMAND A CASE MERELY BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED THAT THE REASONING OF THE LOWER COURT IN SOME RESPECTS WAS WRONG.
The appellate court is mandated to provide reasoned findings and reassess evidence independently, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
