A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is not maintainable unless substantial questions of law arise, which was not the case here.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022 in A.S. No. 80 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 25.06.2018 in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to evict the defendant and deliver vacant possession of plaint schedule property to him and in the event of default, to do so, evict the defendant and put the plaintiff in peaceful possession through process of law and direct the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year from the date of suit to till the date of delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S. No. 80 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant 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 plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S. No. 553 of 2014, is as follows:

(i) The plaintiff purchased item No. 1 of plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed from Karapati Yerrayya of Marripadu colony, originally residing at Moola Showlapuram village, which was registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Amadalavalasa and got physical possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase. The item No. 2 of plaint schedule property is absolute ancestral property of plaintiff derived on the plaintiff in oral family partition. The Government issued pattadar passbook and title deed books relating to plaint schedule property in favour of plaintiff and also collecting revenue from the plaintiff.

(ii) The defendant is no other than the son-in-law of brother of plaintiff viz. Bobbadi Suryanarayana, thus the defendant is relative to the plaintiff. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the year 2002 and requested to give the plant schedule property for cultivation. The plaintiff agreed for the same taking consideration into the relationship. Accordingly, the plaintiff executed a written document for Bogabanda in favour of defendant in the year 2002 and given the plaint schedule property for cultivation to the defendant only for a period of three years, on that terms the defendant has to raise crops and enjoy the produce for which the defendant has to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the plaintiff which is returnable without any interest to defendant in the month of March, 2005 for which the defendant agreed. The defendant deposited Rs.1,30,000/- with plaintiff on the date of execution of said Bogabanda document and accordingly the defendant used to raise crops on the plaint schedule land and enjoyed the produce.

(iii) In the month of March, 2005 the plaintiff paid the said amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the defendant and the defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to plaintiff. Again in the year 2009 the defendant approached the plaintiff at Naira village and requested him to give the plaint schedule property for cultivation as Bogabanda on the same conditions stated above, for which the plaintiff agreed and in the presence of M.V. Ramadas, both plaintiff and defendant entered i