Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Vaddi Satishbabu – Appellant
Versus
B Yasodamma Died – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and initial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of the plaintiff's claims and defendant's response. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. confirmation of trial outcomes and appeal points. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's reasoning on appeal limitations and legal standards. (Para 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. appellant's arguments challenging trial court's findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final judgment and directive to execute damages. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 20-08-2018 in A.S.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-III Additional District Judge at Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.02.2013 in O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Srikakulam. The sole-respondent died during the pendency of the first appeal before the First Appellate Court and her son was brought on record as the respondent No.2 in the first appeal proceedings.
3. The
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is not maintainable unless substantial questions of law arise, which was not the case here.
A tenant cannot acquire title against the true owner, and the rights of subsequent purchasers are protected under law, emphasizing the obligation to vacate upon lease termination.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. requires the demonstration of substantial questions of law; mere disagreement does not suffice.
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal can only be entertained when a substantial question of law arises, not mere factual disputes or allegations lacking proof.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted by the Rent Control Act provisions, making eviction suits based on oral agreements unenforceable and void.
Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Transfer of Property Act, and eviction must follow legal requirements.
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
