Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Mukunda Reddy – Appellant
Versus
S. Chenchu Krishna Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023 on the file of the Court of learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in reversing the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.5 and the respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the defendant Nos.1 to4 before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.112 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interests towards compensation for acquisition of suit schedule land and for costs.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.126 of 2023 on the file of the first appellate Court. By decree and judgment dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023, th
The First Appellate Court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed findings on all relevant issues, failing which its decision is unsustainable.
The appellate courts must adhere to procedural mandates, ensuring independent evaluation and reasoned findings, as failure to do so renders judgments unsustainable.
The appellate court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed reasoning in its decision, failing which the judgment is procedural error.
The Appellate Court erred in denying recovery of possession despite confirming the plaintiff's title, emphasizing that possession without title is unlawful.
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....
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced b....
The appellate court must independently assess evidence and cannot place the burden of proof on the defendant when the plaintiff fails to establish his claim.
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
